The Delhi High Court ruled that once a wife buys her own flat, she cannot keep receiving rent allowance as maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. The court said the “very substratum” of her rent claim ended with her property purchase.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court ruled that a wife who has bought her own flat cannot continue to receive monthly rent maintenance from her husband under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
The case was heard by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who set aside the order of the Sessions Court that had allowed the wife to use ₹20,000 rent allowance towards her flat’s EMIs.
The High Court held:
“The very substratum upon which the maintenance was granted, has ceased to exist with the acquisition of the property.”
Case Background
The husband, Vikaramjeet Rana, married Manisha Rana on 18 May 2013. The couple has a child living with the wife. Since 2021, the two have been living separately.
The wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, and on 16 November 2021, the Metropolitan Magistrate ordered the husband to pay ₹20,000 per month as rent for alternate accommodation, subject to the wife producing rent agreements.
Later, the husband moved an application under Section 25(2) of the DV Act, claiming that the wife had bought a property in Hauz Khas in April 2024, was a government employee getting House Rent Allowance (HRA), and hence no longer needed rent maintenance.
On 22 June 2024, the Magistrate agreed that since the wife had purchased a flat, she could no longer occupy a part of the matrimonial home and directed her to vacate it.
Both parties appealed, and the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) on 31 January 2025 allowed the wife to continue receiving ₹20,000 per month, but adjusted it towards her housing loan EMIs of ₹42,740. The husband challenged this before the High Court.
Husband’s Arguments
The husband argued that the ASJ’s order was against Section 25(2) of the DV Act, which allows modification when circumstances change.
He stated that the wife’s purchase of a “luxurious house in Hauz Khas” was a “substantial change in circumstances” and made her ineligible for rent maintenance.
The petitioner argued that the ASJ “effectively changed the nature of relief granted” by equating rent (a payment for use) with EMI (a payment for ownership). This, he said, “transformed the temporary relief into a permanent asset building mechanism” for the wife.
He submitted that the wife earned around ₹1,10,000 per month, received ₹15,000 HRA, and got ₹35,000 maintenance from him, totaling ₹1,55,000 monthly, while he earned ₹1,30,000 and had to support himself and his widowed mother.
Wife’s Arguments
The wife admitted to buying the flat but claimed it was jointly owned with her mother and said she faced a “huge financial constraint” due to the EMIs of ₹42,740 per month.
She argued that the ASJ had “rightly directed” that the ₹20,000 rent maintenance be adjusted towards EMI payments because it eased her financial burden.
High Court’s Observations
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna identified the “sole question” as whether the wife could continue to receive ₹20,000 per month towards rent after buying a flat.
The Court explained:
“The purpose of the DV Act was to provide succour to women who are financially vulnerable and subjected to domestic violence.”
However, the judge emphasized:
“The said provision cannot be stretched to benefit a woman who is financially independent and capable of maintaining herself.”
Noting that the wife was a permanent government employee with ₹1.10 lakh salary and ₹15,000 HRA, and that the husband earned about ₹1.30 lakh, the Court found both financially stable.
Court’s Key Findings
The Court stated:
“In the present case, indeed there is a change in circumstance as a flat has been admittedly acquired by Respondent No.2.”
It further noted:
“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 ₹20,000 monthly payment would be unjustified:
“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 judge emphasized:
“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.”
Final Order
The Delhi High Court set aside the Sessions Court’s order dated 31 January 2025 and ruled that the wife “shall not be entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards the Rent w.e.f. May, 2024.”
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna thus reinforced that maintenance meant to provide immediate shelter cannot be turned into a means of property ownership once the recipient has purchased her own home.
Explanatory Table — All Laws & Sections Mentioned
| Law / Statute | Section | Purpose / Explanation in Context of This Case |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 | Section 438 r/w 442 | These correspond to old Sections 397 & 401 CrPC, enabling revision petitions against lower-court orders. The husband filed this Criminal Revision under BNSS challenging the ASJ’s order continuing rent maintenance. |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (DV Act) | Section 12 | Allows an aggrieved woman to approach the Magistrate for various reliefs including residence, protection, and maintenance. The wife had filed her main complaint under this provision. |
| Section 19(1)(f) | Empowers courts to order alternate accommodation or rent for the wife when residence in the shared household is not possible. The ₹20,000 monthly rent came under this clause. | |
| Section 23 | Enables the Magistrate to grant interim and ex-parte reliefs for immediate protection or maintenance. Used when the wife first obtained interim rent order in 2021. | |
| Section 25(2) | Permits modification or revocation of any order if there is a change in circumstances. The husband invoked this after the wife bought a flat, arguing the basis for rent no longer existed. | |
| Case law cited by Petitioner | Vinay Verma v. Kanika Pasricha (2019 Del) | Established that maintenance or residence relief under DV Act must be fair and based on need, not to create undue enrichment. |
| Adil v. State (2010 JCC 2577) | Emphasized realistic assessment of financial status before awarding maintenance. | |
| Rajnesh v. Neha (2020 SCC OnLine SC 903) | Laid guidelines for maintenance determination and financial disclosures of both parties. | |
| Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020 AIR SC 5397) | Clarified rights of residence of women in shared households. | |
| Ravneet Kaur v. Prithpal Singh Dhingra (2022 SCC OnLine Del 594) | Held that residence right is not absolute and alternate accommodation may suffice, especially in conflict with in-laws. |
Case Summary
| Detail | Information Extracted from Judgment |
| Case Title | Vikaramjeet Rana vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Manisha Rana |
| Case Number | CRL.REV.P.(MAT) 224/2025 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi |
| Bench | Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna |
| Date Reserved | 18 August 2025 |
| Date Pronounced | 6 November 2025 |
| Petitioner | Vikaramjeet Rana (S/o Late Sh. Ranjit Singh) |
| Respondents | 1. The State (NCT of Delhi) through S.H.O. P.S. Malviya Nagar 2. Manisha Rana (D/o Sh. Ajit Singh Dahiya) |
| Counsels | Not specifically named in the order (recorded as “Through: —”) |
| Statutes & Provisions Involved | Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 — Sections 438 & 442 (corresponding to CrPC Sections 397 & 401); Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 — Sections 12, 19(1)(f), 23, 25(2); Case law cited included Vinay Verma v. Kanika Pasricha (2019 Del), Adil v. State (2010 JCC 2577), Rajnesh v. Neha (2020 SCC OnLine SC 903), Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020 AIR SC 5397), and Ravneet Kaur v. Prithpal Singh Dhingra (2022 SCC OnLine Del 594). |
Key Takeaways
- Wife owning a flat cannot keep claiming rent maintenance.
- Maintenance for rent cannot be turned into EMI payment.
- Financially independent wife is not entitled to free shelter.
- Change in circumstances must lead to modification of orders.
- DV Act is protection, not a lifetime subsidy.
- No double benefits — wife drawing HRA can’t also claim rent.
- Strong message: financial independence ends dependency claims.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.