JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is a petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 [wrongly cited under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 16.04.2016 delivered in Cr./Misc./FC/UDP/03/2016 by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur. 3. It appears from the impugned judgment that on adopting Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income of the petitioner, the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District has directed him to pay the respondents maintenance at Rs.1,500/- each w.e.f. 16.04.2016. It has been further directed that such maintenance should be paid within the first week of every English calendar month without fail. 4. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does not have any regular income and as such the said determination would jeopardise him. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has, thereafter, succinctly submitted that the petitioner has unequivocally stated that he is ready to take back the respondents and to live together. As sequel thereof, he has stated that the respondent No.1 namely Smti. Gita Sen (Chowdhury) without any sufficient cause has left the matrimonial home. 5. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District has clearly observed that the petitioner treated the respondent No.1 with physical and mental torture on demand of money and as such, there was absence of congenial atmosphere in the matrimonial home which compelled her to live separately. 6. Having due regard to the submissions as well as the records, this court is of the view that since the petitioner is an able-bodied person and he married the respondent No.1 and from the wedlock the respondent No.2 is born, the petitioner cannot disown the moral and the legal obligation to maintain the respondents. 7. The quantum of the maintenance as determined by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District is very modest and in the days of price spiral, this may not be even adequate for fair maintenance of the respondents. 8. 7. The quantum of the maintenance as determined by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District is very modest and in the days of price spiral, this may not be even adequate for fair maintenance of the respondents. 8. Be that as it may, having the pattern of income of the petitioner, no interference is called for from this court and accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner succeeds in reconciling the matter, the order of maintenance will have no force and accordingly the petitioner would be at liberty to take all initiatives to reconcile the matrimonial discord and for bringing the respondents back to his house for living a peaceful conjugal life. Send down the LCRs forthwith.