JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Banerji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The respondents filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 and the other respondents could not stay together in the house of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has been working as a Forester and now drawing a monthly emolument of Rs. 25,000/- as stated by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Family Court, Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura has granted Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner No. 1, Smt. Chinta Devi Chakma and a further sum of Rs. 3000/- each for the two minor sons of the petitioner namely Manib Chakma and Talbit Chakma for their maintenance. Thus, the Family Court directed the petitioner to remit or pay Rs. 12,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondents. The respondent No. 1 has been permitted to receive the maintenance for the minor sons of the petitioner. The maintenance has been made payable before the 7th day of each English calendar month from the day of the judgment i.e. 21.07.2016. 3. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has to look after his ailing mother and a physically challenged younger brother. If the petitioner is compelled to pay the said amount as the maintenance to the respondents, the petitioner will hardly have means to sustain the dependents as stated. 4. Mr. B. Banerji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has seriously challenged the submission made by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel contending that the petitioner has been earning also from the other sources and his monthly income is around Rs. 50,000/-. Mr. Banerji, learned counsel however has fairly submitted that the earning from the other sources however has been placed in the evidence by way of the oral evidence of the respondent No. 1. Since the petitioner is a Government employee, the court may not assume any earning from the other sources by means of any business, save and except, his landed property. 5. Having due regard to the circumstances as projected by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that there is no case made out to interfere with the quantum of maintenance. 5. Having due regard to the circumstances as projected by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that there is no case made out to interfere with the quantum of maintenance. Having due regard to the income of the petitioner and his duties to the dependents this court is of the view that the maintenance, payable to the respondent No. 1 Smt. Chinta Devi Chakma shall be reduced to Rs. 5000/-. The remaining part of the impugned order as passed by the Family Court shall remain un-interfered and affirmed and the petitioner shall comply and oblige all the directions, else the respondents shall be at liberty to take legal action for attachment of the appropriate part of the salary of the petitioner. 6. With the observations and directions, this petition is partly allowed and disposed of.