JUDGMENT :

NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused seeking modification of conditions imposed by the learned trial Court while granting permission to travel abroad till 31.07.2027 in a case registered under Section 498-A IPC. The challenge is confined to condition Nos. (b) and (c), whereby the petitioner has been directed to furnish bank guarantee/FDR/cash surety of Rs. 25 lakhs along with one surety in the like amount, and further to furnish an affidavit regarding payment of maintenance arrears and compliance of all maintenance orders during his stay abroad.

2. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that the permission to travel abroad has already been granted by the learned trial Court. The present controversy, therefore, is not with respect to the grant of permission, but only qua the reasonableness and proportionality of the conditions imposed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition of furnishing Rs. 25 lakhs by way of bank guarantee/FDR/cash surety is excessively onerous and virtually renders the permission illusory. It is contended that the petitioner is not a flight risk, and such a high financial condition is arbitrary. It is further argued that the condition relating to payment of maintenance arrears, if any, and compliance of future maintenance orders, though not objected to in principle, ought not to be framed in a manner that makes the permission contingent upon disputed liabilities.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has supported the impugned conditions and submits that in matrimonial offences, particularly under Section 498-A IPC, there is always a reasonable apprehension that the accused, once permitted to go abroad, may evade the process of law and defeat the claims of the complainant, especially in relation to maintenance.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. It is a settled principle that while granting permission to travel abroad, the Court must strike a balance between the fundamental right of personal liberty of the accused, including the right to travel, and the need to secure his presence during trial as well as to safeguard the interests of the complainant. Conditions imposed must, therefore, be reasonable, proportionate, and not so onerous as to defeat the very permission granted.

7. Insofar as condition No. (b) is concerned, requiring the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee/FDR/cash surety in the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs along with one surety in the like amount, this Court is of the considered view that such a condition, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, appears to be excessive. The object of such a condition is to secure the return of the accused and ensure his participation in the proceedings. However, the amount fixed must bear a rational nexus with the financial capacity of the accused and the nature of the case. Imposition of an unduly high amount, without recording specific reasons, may render the relief illusory and infringe upon the right of the accused.

8. At the same time, the apprehension of the complainant cannot be brushed aside lightly. Therefore, some financial safeguard is indeed warranted.

9. Accordingly, condition No.(b) is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 25 lakhs, the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee/FDR in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, along with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The said amount shall remain liable to forfeiture in case the petitioner fails to return to India within the stipulated period or violates the terms of permission.

10. Coming to condition No.(c), requiring the petitioner to furnish an affidavit regarding payment of arrears of maintenance and compliance with maintenance orders during his stay abroad, this Court finds no infirmity in the same. The said condition does not impose any new liability upon the petitioner but merely ensures compliance wit