$~113 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 337/2026 & CRL.M.As. 19007-09/2026 SHAHID KHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yogesh Sharma and Ms. Pratima Ravi, Advocates. versus NELOFER .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 06.07.2026 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (“BNSS”), 2023, challenging the order dated 30.03.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Judge, Family Court-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MT No. 225/2020. 2. Vide the impugned order, the Family Court dismissed the petitioner’s application under Section 127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C”) seeking modification/reduction of the maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month, which was granted to the respondent (his erstwhile wife) in the year 2018. 3. The petitioner’s case, in brief, is that in 2018, he was directed to pay maintenance based on a monthly salary of Rs. 29,000/-. He submits that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he lost his job and subsequently secured This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 10:48:45 temporary re-employment at a meagre salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month. It is further contended that since January 2024, he has been completely unemployed due to severe medical ailments, including three surgeries for Grade-III internal hemorrhoids/piles and a thyroid condition. Additionally, he has solemnized a second marriage and has a minor child, which, according to him, constitutes a “change in circumstances” warranting a reduction in the maintenance amount payable to the respondent. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the record. 5. The amount of maintenance awarded in the year 2018 to the tune of Rs.9,000/- itself seems to be very meagre in the year 2026. The petitioner getting re-married remains undisputed. The petitioner’s salary may have been reduced as has been stated in the petition, however, the same should not be the sole reason to reduce the maintenance amounting to Rs.9,000/- which was granted in the year 2018. The petitioner is hale and hearty person and is expected to maintain his earlier wife. 6. The Family Court in paragraph nos.8.1 and 8.2 has assigned adequate reason as to why no modification/reduction is necessitated. The Family Court noted that the petitioner failed to place any medical evidence on record to establish disability, and merely stating a medical condition cannot lead to the conclusion that he is unable to work. It also observed that since the petitioner is maintaining second wife, child, and aged parents, the natural inference is that he has some source of income as held by the Supreme Court in Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg,1 “10. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is 1 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1314 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 10:48:45 the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.” 7. The Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction does not find any apparent perversity or illegality in the said order. In Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi v. Pyla Suri Demudu & Anr.2, the Supreme Court held: “9. In fact, we also find sufficient substance in the plea that the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction ought not to have entered into a scrutiny of the finding recorded by the Magistrate that the appellant was a married wife of the respondent, before allowing an application determining maintenance as it is well-settled that the revisional court can interfere only if there is any illegality in the order or there is any material irregularity in the procedure or there is an error of jurisdiction. The High Court under its revisional jurisdiction is not required to enter into re- appreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting maintenance; at the most it could correct a patent error of jurisdiction. 10. In revision against the maintenance order passed in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., the revisional court has no power to re-assess evidence and substitute its own findings. Under revisional jurisdiction, the questions whether the applicant is a married wife, the children are legitimate/illegitimate, being pre-eminently questions of fact, cannot be reopened and the revisional court cannot substitute its own views.” 8. Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 6, 2026 tr 2 (2011) 12 SCC 189 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 10:48:45