JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner herein filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance allowance from the respondent alleging that she could not live in the matrimonial home for cruelty of various forms meted to her. Admittedly, the respondent is a Government employee holding the post of Panchayet Secretary and thus, he has means to maintain the petitioner. The petitioner had also claimed maintenance for her son who was admittedly an adult youth. At the time of filing the petition, the said son had been pursuing the course of Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA). 3. The respondent herein filed the objection stating that the petitioner left the matrimonial home with her oblique motive to pursue an extra marital affair and he denied the allegation of cruelty squarely. He has also asserted that their son cannot claim maintenance from him as he has attained the age of majority at the time of institution of the proceeding and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance only for the minor children. Thus, he resisted the claim. However, the petitioner herein tried to elaborate the allegations and placed the requirement of fund for study of their son. By the impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2013 delivered in Misc.161 of 2012, by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, the petitioner has been allowed to get a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) per month as maintenance allowance and an order of deduction of the said sum from the salary of the respondent for purpose of remittance, was also issued simultaneously. The respondent did not express any grievance against the order of deduction. However, the petitioner filed this petition for revision questioning the said order dated 10.12.2013 under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 on the ground that the amount that has been granted as maintenance allowance is so meagre that it cannot fetch even a modest livelihood for the petitioner. There cannot be any difference of opinion that no maintenance can be granted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to the minor son and rightly so, the petitioner had not raised any plea that action in this regard. Her objection is confined to the quantum of maintenance. There cannot be any difference of opinion that no maintenance can be granted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to the minor son and rightly so, the petitioner had not raised any plea that action in this regard. Her objection is confined to the quantum of maintenance. According to her, the respondent has been earning adequately to maintain her properly and the Family Court ought to have granted her a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. If the Court has correctly read the petition as filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., that amount had been claimed in aggregate for the petitioner and her son. Moreover, it is evident from the said petition that the petitioner urged for Rs.6,000/- per month as an ad-interim maintenance. 4. Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that in these days of soaring pricerise, the quantum of maintenance as allowed by the Family Court is too meagre to fetch a modest livelihood. 5. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the respondent did not utter a single word as to the allegation of extramarital affair while deposing in the court for maintaining decency. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has also submitted that the petition for maintenance has been instituted almost after 25 years of the marriage, which itself shows that the petitioner has means to maintain herself. As such, the Family Court ought to have denied the maintenance to her. However, the Family Court considering all aspects including that of prevention of vagrancy as read within Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has provided Rs.3,000/- per month as the maintenance allowance. It is the additional amount, according to the respondent, not the amount for maintenance, as survival for 25 years before institution of the petition itself points at her sufficient. This Court is not in agreement with the submission of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent as the records do not reflect such position. Even the contention of Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for the same reason cannot be accepted fully that the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance allowance Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent. 6. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent as the records do not reflect such position. Even the contention of Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for the same reason cannot be accepted fully that the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance allowance Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent. 6. After deduction, the respondent nowadays is earning a sum between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.17,000/- and as such, this Court is of the view that without embarking on the nitty gritties of the things, the petitioner’s maintenance allowance shall be enhanced to Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four thousand Five hundred) per month w.e.f. 01.08.2016 which shall be payable before 10.09.2016 and the respondent shall continue to pay the monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four thousand Five hundred) per month in every month before 10th day of every English Calendar month. Further, the said amount shall be deducted from the salary of the respondent and remitted to the account of the petitioner, if furnished by her, or be sent by money order in the given address of the petitioner as provided in the impugned order. Whatever the charge that would incur for remittance, that shall also be borne by the respondent. With this observation and direction, this petition stands partly allowed and accordingly, is disposed of. Send down the LCRs forthwith. A copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel appearing for the parties for doing their needful.