The High Court of Delhi, in a judgment pronounced on November 6, 2025, has ruled that a wife receiving interim maintenance for alternate accommodation (rent) under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) is not entitled to continue receiving the payment after she has acquired her own property.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, presiding over the case [CRL.REV.P. (MAT) 224/2025], set aside an order by a learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) that had allowed the wife to use the Rs. 20,000 monthly rent payment for her new flat’s EMIs. The High Court held that the “very substratum” upon which the maintenance was granted—the need for shelter—had “ceased to exist” with the acquisition of the new property.
Background of the Case
The petitioner (husband) and Respondent No. 2 (the wife) were married on 18.05.2013 and have one child. They began residing separately in 2021. The wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.
Vide Order dated 16.11.2021, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (M.M.) granted interim reliefs, directing the husband to pay Rs. 20,000 per month to the wife for alternate accommodation, subject to filing rent agreements.
Subsequently, the husband filed an application under Section 25(2) of the D.V. Act for modification, stating that the wife had purchased a property in Hauz Khas in April 2024 and was also a Government servant receiving rent allowance.
On 22.06.2024, the learned M.M. disposed of this application, holding that since the wife had bought her own flat, she could “no longer occupy a portion of the matrimonial home” and directed her to surrender possession.
Both parties filed cross-appeals. In the impugned Order dated 31.01.2025, the learned ASJ observed that although the wife acquired a flat, she had to pay EMIs of Rs. 42,740 per month. The ASJ, therefore, ordered that the Rs. 20,000, “which was earlier given for rent, may be adjusted for repayment of EMIs.”
The husband challenged this ASJ order in the present Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner (Husband): The petitioner argued that the ASJ’s order was contrary to Section 25(2) of the D.V. Act, which permits modification of orders based on a “change of circumstances.” He contended that the wife’s purchase of a “luxurious house” constituted a “substantial change in the circumstances.”
It was asserted that the ASJ “effectively changed the nature of relief granted” by equating rent (payment for use) with EMI (payment for ownership). The petitioner argued this “transformed the temporary relief into a permanent asset building mechanism” for the wife.
The petitioner stated that the wife, a Government employee, has a salary of approx. Rs. 1,10,000 per month, receives HRA of approx. Rs. 15,000, and Rs. 35,000 (total) from him, giving her a total monthly income of approx. Rs. 1,55,000. In contrast, his income is Rs. 1,30,000, and after paying Rs. 35,000, he is left with Rs. 95,000 to support himself and his widow mother.
Respondent (Wife): The wife contended that she was subjected to domestic violence. She did not deny acquiring the flat but asserted it was in the “joint name with the mother.” She argued that the monthly EMI of Rs. 42,740 “created a huge financial constraint.”
She submitted that the learned ASJ “rightly directed” the Rs. 20,000 to be adjusted towards the EMI payment.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in her judgment, identified the “sole question” as whether the wife is entitled to continue receiving Rs. 20,000 per month towards rent after acquiring a flat.
The Court observed that the legislative intent of the D.V. Act is “to provide succour to women who are financially vulnerable and subjected to domestic violence.” However, the judgment stated, “the said provision cannot be stretched to benefit a woman who is financially independent and capable of maintaining herself.”
The Court noted the wife’s financial status as a “permanent Government employee” with a salary of Rs. 1,10,000 per month and a monthly HRA of Rs. 15,000, and the husband’s “somewhat commensurate” income of Rs. 1,30,000 per month.
The judgment affirmed that the husband’s application was based on Section 25(2) of the D.V. Act (change of circumstances). The Court held: “In the present case, indeed there is a change in circumstance as a flat has been admittedly acquired by Respondent No.2.”
Addressing the purpose of the original grant, the Court found: “As already noted, the purpose of granting maintenance under the D.V. Act was to provide the Respondent with alternate accommodation. However, she having acquired a flat in Hauz Khas, Delhi, she cannot be held to be in need of immediate shelter.”
The Court concluded that continuing the payment would be inappropriate. “Once a flat has been acquired by the Respondent, there remains no justification to direct continuation of payment of Rs.20,000/- per month by the Petitioner,” the judgment stated.
In a key observation, the Court ruled: “The very substratum upon which the maintenance was granted, has ceased to exist with the acquisition of the property. To permit the continuation of such payment, would be to allow the Respondent undue benefit, which is contrary to the purpose of interim relief under the D.V. Act.”
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 and directed that Respondent No. 2 (the wife) “shall not be entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards the Rent w.e.f. May, 2024.”
