Court Orders Rs. 20 Lakh Property Sale Proceeds to Offset Maintenance Payments from Application Filing Date
In a landmark decision on April 4, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., issued a ruling in the case of Anurag Manohar Kankerwal v. Soham Rani, emphasizing the need for consistency in determining interim maintenance across parallel legal proceedings. The judgment addressed the contentious issue of maintenance payments between the petitioner-husband Anurag Manohar Kankerwal and the respondent-wife Soham Rani, who are embroiled in separate proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act).
The court clarified that Rs. 20 lakh received by the respondent-wife from the sale of a property in Rohini should be adjusted against interim maintenance payments from the date of filing the application rather than the date of separation. This adjustment aims to ensure consistency in maintenance determinations and avoid contradictory findings by different forums.
The case's background reveals a matrimonial discord leading to separate living arrangements since March 2019. Amid allegations of cruelty and harassment, the respondent-wife had filed a petition under the PWDV Act and another under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The Family Court had initially granted interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 per month, which the petitioner-husband contested, seeking review due to the Rs. 20 lakh received by the respondent-wife from the property sale.
In its detailed judgment, the Delhi High Court upheld the interim maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000 per month, deeming it reasonable given the petitioner-husband's financial circumstances. However, the court emphasized that the property sale proceeds must offset maintenance payments from the filing date of the application to maintain consistency across proceedings.
The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha to reinforce the principle that maintenance amounts claimed under different statutes must be adjusted to prevent duplication of payments. The decision mandates that any maintenance payments made under either statute be set off against each other, ensuring an equitable financial arrangement between the parties.
This ruling sets a precedent for handling maintenance disputes involving parallel proceedings, highlighting the importance of consistency and fairness in judicial determinations.
Bottom Line:
Interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and PWDV Act should be consistent and adjustments for amounts received from property sale or other proceedings must be made to avoid contradictory findings by different forums.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Anurag Manohar Kankerwal v. Soham Rani, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2878007
