JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By means of this petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the judgment and order dated 08.07.2014 delivered in Crl. Misc. No. 127/2013 by the judge, Family Court, Kailasahar has been called in question. 3. The respondent herein filed a petition claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from the petitioner. According to her, she failed to reside in the matrimonial home for unbearable torture meted by her husband. She has further stated that in their wedlock, one child was born. Finally by aggravating the torture, the petitioner drove her away from the marital home after 26 years of marriage and she does not have any means to survive. The Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, North Tripura [as it then was] took an initiative for reconciliation but that did not succeed. 4. In reply to the allegations made in the petition for maintenance, the husband denied to have treated the wife with cruelty and on the contrary, he had leveled allegation of leading indecent life by her by maintaining relation "with other boys." The petitioner claimed to have given "Talaq" to the respondent. It appears from the records that the petitioner did not make fair provisions for maintenance of the petitioner. 5. On the earlier date, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised his objection whether a divorce Muslim woman can maintain a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. but today having considered the position of law he has fairly submitted that ground he would not insist. Now he has questioned the quantum that has been decided by the Family Court, Kailashahar, North Tripura. 6. By the order dated 08.07.2014, delivered in Crl. Misc. No. 127/13 the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1,200/- as monthly maintenance with effect from 01.07.2014. The said quantum is now under challenge. 7. Having heard both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, this court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. 8. A copy of the order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties.