Changed circumstances warrant applications under Sections 125(5) or 127, not a delayed revision.

The revisionist challenged a 5 May 2017 Family Court order granting his wife maintenance of ₹5,000 per month and a 16 July 2025 order directing his employer to deduct the maintenance from his salary.

He filed the revision with a delay-condonation application, acknowledging a delay of 87 days.

He argued that changed circumstances—including the wife’s ability to maintain herself and the dissolution of the marriage—justified setting aside the orders.

The maintenance order had not been stayed or set aside and had been executed.

Whether the revision challenging the maintenance and execution orders should be dismissed because it was filed 87 days late.

Whether the revisionist’s alleged post-order change in circumstances should be pursued through an application before the trial court under Sections 125(5) or 127 Cr.P.C., rather than through the present revision.

Section 125(5) Cr.P.C. permits cancellation of a maintenance order in specified circumstances, including where a wife refuses without sufficient reason to live with her husband; its corresponding provision under the BNSS is Section 144(5).

Section 127 Cr.P.C. permits alteration of maintenance upon proof of a change in circumstances and provides for cancellation or variation in certain circumstances arising from a competent civil court’s decision; its corresponding BNSS provision is Section 146.

The Court held that these provisions provide the appropriate statutory route for seeking cancellation or alteration based on changed circumstances.

The revisionist relied on developments said to have occurred after the 2017 maintenance order, rather than showing that the order had been stayed or set aside; the Court noted that the order had already been executed.

It reasoned that alleged changes in circumstances could be raised before the trial court under Sections 125(5) or 127 Cr.P.C., as applicable, and did not justify pursuing the time-barred revision as the means of obtaining that relief.

Given the 87-day delay and the availability of that statutory remedy, the Court found the revision liable to dismissal.

It left the revisionist to pursue any appropriate application under Sections 125(5) or 127 Cr.P.C., or the corresponding BNSS provisions, before the trial court.