Heard Mr. Gourakrishna Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. [2] This application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Family Court dated 10.1.2006 passed in Cril (M) Case No. 30 of 2005. [3] The fact of the case is very short and simple inasmuch as the present petitioner/opposite party in the Cril (M) Case No. 30 of 2005 of the Family Court, Lamphelpat is not denying that the present respondent No. 2/petitioner in Cril (M) Case No. 30 of 2005 is his wife. It is also clear from the judgment and order of the learned Family Court dated 10.1.2006 passed in Cril (M) Case No. 30 of 2005 that after necessary deductions the home take monthly income of the present petitioner/opposite party in the Lower Court being a Peon is a sum of Rs. 4,375/- per month and also that he has no other dependant except the respondent who is a half blind taking shelter at the material house of her own daughter. In the present application nothing is mentioned that the petitioner has dependants other than the respondent No. 2/petitioner in the Cril (M) Case No. 30 of 2005. Over and above surprisingly in the present application the petitioner/opposite party in the lower Court has not even denied that his home take monthly income being a peon is Rs. 4,375/- [4] It is accepted principle of law that the High Court in exercising the revisional power has to interfere with the judgment and order of the Trial court only when there is glaring case of injustice resulting from the violation of fundamental principles of law by the Trial Court. [Reference: Bansi Lal & Ors Vs Laxman Singh: AIR 1986 SC 1721 ]. It is also well settled that revisional power of High court is exercised in exceptional circumstances: (1) when there is glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error in point of law and there is flagrant miscarriage of justice. [Ref:Amar Chand Agarwala Vs Shanti Bose & Anr: AIR 1973 SC 799 ] This ratio had been followed in Panthumma & Anr Vs Muhammad: AIR 1986 SC 1428 . [Ref:Amar Chand Agarwala Vs Shanti Bose & Anr: AIR 1973 SC 799 ] This ratio had been followed in Panthumma & Anr Vs Muhammad: AIR 1986 SC 1428 . [5] The present application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is frivolous inasmuch as nothing had been made out to satisfy this court that there is glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest error in the point of law in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 10.1.2006 by the learned Family Court in Cril (M) Case No. 30 of 2005. Further, the question of quantum of maintenance allowance decided by the Family Court in passing the judgment and order dated 10.1.2006 in Cril (M) Case No. 30 of 2005 is pre-eminently question of fact and this court in exercising power under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, is not re appreciating the evidence and make a finding substituting the finding of fact about the quantum of maintenance made by the learned Family Court after appreciating the statements of the PWs and DWs in the impugned judgment and order. Keeping in view of the above discussion and law laid down by the Apex Court this court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.