ORDER : By invoking the revisional power of this Court under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’) read with Section 19(4) of Family Court Act, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 10.09.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Maintenance Case no. 203 of 2010 whereby and whereunder a petition field at the instance of the present opposite party no.2 for grant of maintenance to her and her two children has been allowed and the petitioner has been further directed to reimburse all the educational fees and other expenses on the education of the two children on presentation of the receipts. 2. At the instance of the present opposite party no.2-the wife, a petition under Section 125 of the Code was filed in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad on the ground that she is the legally married wife of the opposite party Md. Tauhid (present petitioner) and their marriage was solemnized on 01.03.1998 according to Muslim Custom and both were living together as husband and wife and out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with one daughter and one son but she was always subjected to physical and mental torture on some pretext or others. It is also stated in the petition that her husband is a government employee working under Indian Railway and earns a handsome amount as salary and other allowances and has also earning from cultivation, while on the other hand, she has no means of livelihood to maintain herself and her two minor children. She is presently dependent upon her parents, who have their own expenses and may not be in a position to support her for a long. Hence, her prayer was to grant of maintenance for herself and her two minor children and also an amount for the education of the two minor children. 3. The present petitioner after appearance filed his show-cause and admitted the factum of marriage and even stated that he is ready to keep his wife and the two children but it is the opposite party no.2, who had deserted him and is avoiding to restore the conjugal life with some motive to receive maintenance and lead an independent life. 4. The present petitioner after appearance filed his show-cause and admitted the factum of marriage and even stated that he is ready to keep his wife and the two children but it is the opposite party no.2, who had deserted him and is avoiding to restore the conjugal life with some motive to receive maintenance and lead an independent life. 4. On behalf of present opposite party no.2, witnesses were examined in court but the petitioner neither examined himself as a witness in court nor produced any other witness. The court below after examining the evidence and the case of the parties passed the order impugned. Hence, this revision. 5. Md. Zaid Ahmad learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned as bad in law seriously contended that the court below erred in allowing maintenance amount, which was not even claimed by the opposite party-the wife though the petitioner was always ready and willing to keep his wife and children along with him. Learned counsel very fairly submitted that the petitioner is also maintaining his mother, who is very old and he is a lower grade employee in Indian Railway and the amount of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- allowed by the court will put the petitioner in financial distress as he has other expenses also. It was also submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to opposite party no.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to each child towards their maintenance allowance besides the reimbursement of educational fees and other expenses of education if the receipts to that extent are presented to him by his wife. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2- wife supported the order impugned and submitted that the petitioner at present is getting more than Rs.30,000/- as salary and after the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission, certainly the petitioner will get a better amount than he is getting at present but he has no objection if the petitioner admits to pay Rs.5,000/- to his wife and Rs.2,000/- to each child besides the other expenses of education as directed by the court below at this stage. 7. 7. On perusal of the petition filed under Section 125 of the Code in the court below, it appears that the present opposite party no.2-the wife had prayed a maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month for herself and Rs.4,000/- for the maintenance of her minor children but the said petition was filed in the year 2010 and the impugned order was passed after four years in September, 2014 and considering the fact that by that time, the petitioner was getting a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month, the court below directed to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the present opposite party no.2 besides the other maintenance amount. Since the petitioner in his show cause filed in the court below has agreed to pay the maintenance amount, I think proper to direct him to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.2,000/- each per month to the two children besides the reimbursement of educational fees and other expenses of education of the two children. The court below has rightly directed the present opposite party no.2, who was petitioner in the court below to open an account in any Nationalized Bank in which the present petitioner will deposit the amount on month-to-month basis to which the petitioner has agreed before this Court also. 8. With the aforesaid modification in the amount of maintenance to the present opposite party no.2, this revision application is dismissed. Application dismissed.