In a significant order dated 11.04.2026, the Ld. Mahila Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi, partly allowed an application moved on behalf of the Respondent/Husband seeking modification of an earlier direction requiring him to continuously bear the electricity expenses of the shared household. On behalf of the respondent, it was specifically argued that the complainant was misusing the earlier order by causing excessive electricity consumption, resulting in abnormally inflated bills running several times higher than the average household usage.
After examining the consumption pattern and comparative electricity bills on record, the Court observed “stark inconsistencies” and acknowledged that the respondent was being subjected to unnecessary financial burden and harassment. Exercising powers under Section 25(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, the Court held that there had been a material change in circumstances warranting modification of the earlier order. Consequently, a monthly cap of ₹2,000/- towards electricity charges was imposed prospectively, while also directing the complainant to explain unusually excessive bills of ₹8,240/-, ₹11,240/- and ₹9,060/- for specific periods.
The order is an important reminder that interim protections under the DV Act cannot be permitted to become instruments of unfair financial oppression, and that courts retain continuing jurisdiction to modify such directions where misuse or changed circumstances are demonstrated.