JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This petition is converted as the revision application filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act. By this petition, the judgment and order dated 16.06.2016 delivered in Misc. 440 of 2014 by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, has been called in question. The ground, as urged in this Court by the petitioner is confined to the enhancement of the maintenance allowance, in exercise of the powers provided under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the salary certificate in respect of the petitioner issued by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, 9th Battallion, TSR (IA-IV) was produced before the Family Court. From the said certificate dated 19.06.2016, it would be apparent that after the deduction, the petitioner is receiving the net pay of Rs.11,678/- out of his gross salary of Rs. 19,636/-. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has dependant parents and finally if this order is implemented, the petitioner after adjusting his charge in the mess to the extent of Rs.2,000/-, he would be getting only Rs.1,678/-. The petitioner will not be in a position to maintain his old parents who are entirely dependent on him. 4. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the son of the petitioner and the respondent is suffering from complicated renal illness and every month the respondent has to defray medical expenses and it is very difficult unless a substantial sum is received in the form of maintenance for continuing with the treatment. That apart, Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has submitted that in these days of excruciating price rise, for leading a modest life even the said amount is inadequate. 5. Having due regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel and on perusing the impugned order dated 16.06.2016, this court finds that the quantum of the maintenance, as has been enhanced by the impugned order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, would cause an inconducive situation for the petitioner. 5. Having due regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel and on perusing the impugned order dated 16.06.2016, this court finds that the quantum of the maintenance, as has been enhanced by the impugned order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, would cause an inconducive situation for the petitioner. Even recognizing anxiety to look after the welfare of the distressed wife or son, the Court has always a duty to make a balance of the relevant factors while granting maintenance allowance and those factors are essentially related to the status of their life as well as the income of the person who would pay finally the maintenance allowance. 6. No doubt, if the enhanced amount is paid to the respondent, it would be beneficial for her and their child. But the court cannot also push the petitioner into such a situation where he would not be able to maintain his old parents. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the minor son of the petitioner, who is aged about 1½ years would get the maintenance to the extent of Rs.2,500/- and the respondent, the wife of the petitioner shall get a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month, but the payment of the maintenance allowance shall be made to the respondent, the wife of the petitioner, within 7th day of every English calendar month. 7. In fine, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.6,500/- (rupees six thousand five hundred) only w.e.f. 01.06.2016. The arrear maintenance, as would accrue, shall be paid by three equal installments, meaning, first installment shall be paid in the month of November, 2016, the second installment shall be paid in the month of December, 2016 and the third and last installment shall be paid in the month of January, 2017, in addition to the monthly maintenance allowance, as granted to be paid within the stipulated time. If the amount is remitted by money order, the money order charge shall be borne by the petitioner but if the respondent furnished her bank account details, the amount may be remitted by transfer to her account. 8. With this observation and direction, this petition stands partly allowed to the extent, as indicated above.