Maintenance cannot be modified without cogent evidence of changed financial circumstances or physical inability to earn.

The applicant (husband) and respondent no. 1 (wife) were married according to social customs, and respondent no. 2 (daughter) was born from the marriage

The applicant filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (now Section 146 B.N.S.S.) seeking the modification or removal of a monthly maintenance award of ₹7,000 previously granted to the respondents

The applicant alleged that respondent no. 1 is well-educated and earns approximately ₹70,000–₹80,000 per month from tailoring, a showroom job, and a grocery business

He further claimed that respondent no. 2 had attained majority and that he suffered from illnesses affecting his earning capacity

On 24.02.2026, the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, dismissed the application

The applicant challenged this dismissal via the present criminal revision, asserting the order was arbitrary and passed in his absence

1. Whether the Family Court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in dismissing the application for modification of maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (now Section 146 B.N.S.S.)

2. Whether the applicant successfully established a "change in circumstances," such as the wife’s independent income or his own physical incapacity, to warrant modification of the maintenance order

The Court applied Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 146 of the B.N.S.S.), which allows for the alteration or cancellation of a maintenance allowance upon proof of a change in the circumstances of the parties receiving or paying the allowance

The Court also relied on the evidentiary principle that the burden of proof rests on the applicant to provide reliable evidence of a spouse's independent income or a party's total incapacity to earn

The High Court found that the Family Court properly evaluated the evidence before dismissing the application

It noted that the applicant failed to produce reliable evidence to substantiate the claim that respondent no. 1 earned a high independent income

Regarding the applicant’s health, the Court observed that the submitted medical documents did not prove a permanent or serious illness that rendered him incapable of earning a livelihood

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the applicant was attempting to relitigate grounds that had been previously considered and rejected, without bringing any new substantial material to the record

The High Court concluded that there was no evidence of the applicant being completely incapable of paying the maintenance and therefore found no infirmity or illegality in the lower court’s decision

The Court affirmed that the applicant failed to establish sufficient grounds for the modification or setting aside of the maintenance order

The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within one week for necessary follow-up action