CRL RC/2184/2026 of A.Daniel Vs Minor D.Jeshu Olivian on 2 November 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

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

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

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

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,

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.

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

CRL RC No. 2184 of 2026

SHAMIM AHMED, J. SRCM CRL RC No. 2184 of 2026 02-11-2026