The Rajasthan High Court recently ruled that the right to live a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the obligation to fulfill one's responsibilities as a good husband to one's wife.

Justice Arun Monga expressed that the right to live with dignity encompasses the obligation to fulfill familial and marital duties, which are essential to human dignity and societal expectations. The Court made this observation while granting interim bail to a man so he could attend to his ailing wife, who required urgent medical surgery.

“Fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution of India, 1950, also encompasses right to live with dignity as a human being which necessary entails to act as a good husband in terms of the marital wows taken during the saptapadi ceremony as per Hindu rituals,” the Court observed in its October 24 bail order.

The temporary bail application was submitted by a man (the petitioner) who is facing multiple charges of cheating and related offenses linked to the Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society case.

The petitioner was booked under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code including Section 406 (criminal breach of trust), Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant etc.), Section 467 (forgery), Section 468 (forgery for cheating), Section 471 (using forged document), and Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy).

He had been incarcerated since November 2022. He requested temporary bail for three months due to his wife's critical medical condition, as she required urgent spinal surgery and had no adequate support without him. The petitioner informed the Court that delays in the surgery could worsen her condition and jeopardize her life.

On October 16, the Court allowed the public prosecutor time to respond to the petitioner’s claims regarding his wife's precarious health, but the prosecution did not contest the medical facts presented. 

On October 24, the Court granted the petitioner 60 days of interim bail to care for his wife following her surgery. The Court noted that there was no significant risk of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, as the majority of the evidence was documentary in nature and had already been secured.

Considering the petitioner's vital role as his wife's caregiver and the absence of alternative family support, the Court deemed it necessary to grant him temporary bail for 60 days on humanitarian grounds.