01Facts
The petitioner was ordered to pay his minor son maintenance of ₹8,000 per month by the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai, on 15 April 2023. On the child’s revision, the High Court enhanced the amount to ₹15,000 per month on 30 April 2024.
¶ 2–3The petitioner later filed an application seeking modification of the maintenance order and sought condonation of a 98-day delay in representing that application. The Family Court dismissed the delay-condonation application, reasoning that the High Court had already considered and enhanced the maintenance. The petitioner challenged that dismissal in this revision.
¶ 9–1002Issues
i.1. Whether the Family Court was justified in dismissing the application to condone the 98-day delay in representing the modification application, given that the High Court had already determined the quantum of maintenance.
¶ 8ii.2. Whether the petitioner demonstrated a subsequent change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the maintenance amount under Section 127(1) CrPC / Section 146(1) BNSS.
¶ 11–1503Law Applied
Section 127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 146(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the competent court to alter a maintenance allowance upon proof of a change in the circumstances of the person receiving or paying it.
¶ 11That power is not a means to reopen issues already decided in the absence of a subsequent change in circumstances.
¶ 14The Court also referred to Section 125 CrPC’s purpose of preventing destitution and providing maintenance to an eligible wife or child.
¶ 18Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 127Section 125
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 146
04Reasoning
The High Court had enhanced maintenance to ₹15,000 per month after considering the circumstances in the earlier revision. The petitioner produced no convincing material showing a substantial change in circumstances after that decision; nor did he identify a specific subsequent circumstance warranting reduction.
¶ 10–15Although the immediate application concerned condonation of delay, the proposed modification sought to revisit the same maintenance determination. The Court therefore held that the Family Court was entitled to take account of the prior enhancement and found no basis to interfere with its order.
¶ 16It also considered that reopening the amount without a demonstrated change could prejudice the minor child.
¶ 17–1805Holding
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision and confirmed the Family Court’s order dated 14 August 2026 dismissing the delay-condonation application.
¶ 19The petitioner was directed to continue paying maintenance of ₹15,000 per month in accordance with the High Court’s order dated 30 April 2024; there was no order as to costs, and the connected petition was closed.
¶ 19–20Original Court PDF
A.DanielvsMinor D.Jeshu Olivian
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
