A.Daniel vs Minor D.Jeshu Olivian
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL RC No. 2184 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 2184 of 2026
Crl.MP.No.18182 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012224542026}
A.Daniel, S/o C.Arjunan,
Aged About 40 yrs Last Known Address
F-1, Thillai Ganga Apartments, Easwaran Koil
Street, Orakadam, Ambattur, Chennai
Presently working and employed in Sukruwarpet
post office Coimbatore-641001,
Now Working in Salem Camp Post Office
Salem 636456
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Minor D.Jeshu Olivian, S/o A.Daniel,
Rep by Mother and Natural Gurardian M.Nanthini
Temporarily Residing at B2/12, Bhauvaneshwari
Apartments Bharathidasan Coloy, KK Nagar,
Chennai 600078. Permanent Address At
55 Mullai Nagar, nathamedu Lake Near
Thiruninravur
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records relating to
the order, dated 14.08.2026 passed in MP.No.1211 of 2026 in MC.No.464 of
2021 by the VI Additional Family Court at Chennai and set aside the same and
to direct the VI Additional Family Court at Chennai to adjudicate MP.No.1221
of 2026 in M.C.No.464 of 2021, on merits.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.V.Bhashyam Chari
For Respondent(s): Mr.D.J.Venkatesan
__________
Page1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )
CRL RC No. 2184 of 2026
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records, relating to the
order, dated 14.08.2026, passed in MP.No.1211 of 2026 in MC.No.464 of
2021 by the VI Additional Family Court at Chennai and to set aside the same
and to direct the VI Additional Family Court at Chennai to adjudicate
MP.No.1221 of 2026 in M.C.No.464 of 2021 on merits.
2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the mother of the
minor Respondent, namely, Nanthini, got married on 04.02.2013 and out of
their wed lock, a male child/the Respondent was born on 05.11.2013. Due to
matrimonial dispute, the mother of the minor Respondent and the minor
Respondent got separated. Thereafter, the minor Respondent, represented by
his mother, had filed MC.No.464 of 2021, against the Revision Petitioner,
seeking maintenance, before the Trial Court. By the order dated, 15.04.2023,
a sum of Rs.8,000/- p.m. as maintenance, was ordered to be paid to the
minor Respondent.
3. Thereafter, the minor Respondent, represented by his mother, had filed
Crl.RC.No.1572 of 2023, before this Court, seeking enhancement of
maintenance. By the order dated, 30.04.2024, of this Court, the maintenance
amount was enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner had
filed MP.No.1211 of 2026 in MC.No.464 of 2021, under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, before the Trial Court, seeking to condone the delay of 98
__________
Page2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )
CRL RC No. 2184 of 2026
days in, representing the application for modification of the maintenance
allowance, granted by the order dated 15.04.2023 of the Trial Court and the
order of this Court, dated 30.04.2024. By the impugned order, dated
14.08.2026, the Trial Court had dismissed the said petition, on the ground
that since, this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
had already enhanced the maintenance amount, again modification or
reduction of the maintenance amount cannot be done. Hence, this Criminal
Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as
stated above.
4. This Court heard Mr.K.V.Bhashyam Chari, the learned counsel for the
Revision Petitioner and Mr.D.J.Venkatesan, the learned counsel for the
Respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Trial
Court had passed the impugned order, dismissing the petition, seeking to
condone the delay in representing the petition for modification of the
maintenance amount by the Trial Court, merely by referring to the previous
order of this Court, dated 30.04.2024, passed in Crl.RC.No.1572 of 2023 and
that the Trial Court ought to have considered the provisions of Section 127
of Cr.PC read with Section 146(1) of BNSS and passed appropriate orders,
after permitting both the parties to file their respective affidavits of assets,
income and liabilities and relevant documents and that the Trial Court,
without assessing the financial capacity of the Revision Petitioner and the
__________
Page3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )
CRL RC No. 2184 of 2026
means and ability of the mother of the minor Respondent to maintain herself
and the Respondent, had passed the impugned order and hence, this
Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed, as prayed for.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the
Trial Court had passed the order, awarding a sum of Rs.8,000/- as maintenace
to the minor Respondent, after duly considering the facts and circumstances
of the case and that it was also enhanced to Rs.15,000/- by this High Court,
considering the cost of living, prevailing as on date. The amount of
Rs.15,000/- as maintenance for the Respondent is not too much. It is
contended that again, it is not open to the Revision Petitioner to challenge the
order of this Court before the lower court and that in such circumstances, and
in order to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not warrant any
interference by this Court, as there is no illegality, impropriety, or perversity
in the impugned order.
7. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side
and also perused the entire materials placed on record.
8. The question that arises for consideration in this Criminal Revision Case is as
to whether the Trial Court, was justified in dismissing petition, seeking
condonation of delay of 98 days, in representing the application filed by the
Revision Petitioner for modification of the maintenance amount, when this
Court had already decided the issue with respect to quantum of maintenance?
9. The facts that the Revision Petitioner is the husband of the mother of the
__________
Page4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )
CRL RC No. 2184 of 2026
minor Respondent and they got a male child, who is the Respondent herein,
are not disputed. Admittedly, the Trial Court, by the order dated 15.04.2023,
in MC.No.464 of 2021, had awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- p.m. towards
maintenance to the minor Respondent. Thereafter, the minor Respondent,
represented by his mother, had preferred Crl.RC.No.1572 of 2023 before this
Court, seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. This Court, by the
order dated 30.04.2024, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
had enhanced the maintenance from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month.
10.Thus, the quantum of maintenance was subsequently considered by this
Court, in the revision proceedings, initiated by the minor Respondent,
represented by his mother and, after considering the circumstances then
prevailing, the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs.15,000/- per month.
11.It is true that under Section 127(1) of Cr.PC (Section 146(1) of BNSS), the
competent Court is empowered to alter the maintenance allowance upon
proof of a change in the circumstances of the person, receiving or paying the
maintenance.
12.In the present case, the Revision Petitioner has not placed before this Court
any convincing material to show that, subsequent to the order dated
30.04.2024 passed by this Court in Crl.RC.No.1572 of 2023, there has been
any substantial change in circumstances, warranting reconsideration or
reduction of the maintenance amount.
13.The financial capacity of the Revision Petitioner and the means and ability of
__________
Page5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )
CRL RC No. 2184 of 2026
the mother of the minor Respondent had already been considered in the
earlier proceedings, culminating in the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in
Crl.RC.No.1572 of 2023, by this Court.
14.The power under Section 127 Cr.PC (146(1) of BNSS) is not intended to
provide an opportunity to a party to reopen the very same issues, which had
already been considered and decided in the earlier proceedings, in the
absence of a subsequent change in circumstances.
15.In the present case, the Revision Petitioner seeks to question the quantum of
Rs.15,000/- per month, which was fixed by this Court on 30.04.2024. No
specific or subsequent circumstance has been demonstrated before this Court
to show that the circumstances have materially changed after the order dated
30.04.2024.
16.Though the present application before the Trial Court was filed for
condonation of delay, in representing the modification petition, the proposed
modification itself is sought for based upon the very same maintenance order,
which had already been considered by this Court. The Trial Court, therefore,
cannot be faulted for taking into consideration the fact that the maintenance
amount had already been enhanced by this Court, after due consideration.
17.This Court is also of the view that the Respondent, being a minor child,
cannot be made to suffer by repeatedly, reopening the quantum of
maintenance, in the absence of any demonstrated change in circumstances.
The maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month was fixed by this Court,
__________
Page6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )
CRL RC No. 2184 of 2026
only after the earlier order awarding Rs.8,000/- was challenged by the minor
Respondent, represented by his mother.
18. The amount fixed towards maintenance by this Court is Rs.15,000/- for the
Respondent, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of
living, cannot be considered as excessive or disproportionate or unreasonable.
The said monetary relief granted to the Respondent, by this Court is adequate,
fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living, to which the
aggrieved person is accustomed. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.PC are
enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife/child and provide some
succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance, which cannot be
denied. Further, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has not been
able to point out any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the
impugned order of the Trial Court. In such circumstances, to meet the ends of
justice, the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court
and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
19.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed . The order dated
14.08.2026 passed by the learned VI Additional Family Court, Chennai, in
MP.No.1211 of 2026 in M.C.No.464 of 2021 is hereby confirmed . There is
no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Crl.MP is closed.
20.The Revision Petitioner shall continue to pay the maintenance amount of
Rs.15,000/- per month to the Respondent in accordance with the order dated
30.04.2024 passed by this Court in Crl.RC.No.1572 of 2023.
__________
Page7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )
CRL RC No. 2184 of 2026
21.The Registry of this Court is directed to sent a copy of this order to the Trial
Court, for its necessary compliance and information, forthwith.
02-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SRCM
To
1. VI Additional Family Court at Chennai
__________
Page8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )
CRL RC No. 2184 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
SRCM
CRL RC No. 2184 of 2026
02-11-2026
__________
Page9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )