JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. Acharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By means of this revisional petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. the order dated 29.02.2016 delivered in Crl. Misc. 39 of 2015 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamalpur, Unakoti Judicial District has been called in question. 3. By the said order passed in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., the maintenance allowance as granted earlier by the order dated 03.07.2006 delivered in Misc. 10 of 2005 @ Rs. 1000/- per month has been enhanced to Rs. 3,500/- per month in favour of the respondent. The ground for such enhancement is available in the passage which is being reproduced herein under from the impugned order dated 29.02.2016 : “From the above evidence it is undisputed that O/P is providing monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the petitioner wife since the living apart from petitioner as per the aforesaid maintenance order. At present he became regular Group-D employee, serving under Agriculture Department. In his version it is stated that he is only drawing salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. But in this regard petitioner submitted the certified copy of salary certificate which reveals that he is drawing salary of Rs. 12,000/- and after deduction getting net salary of Rs. 1 round 11,000/-. It appears that petitioner is getting maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/- since last 17 years. She did not approach the Court for getting enhancement of monthly maintenance allowance before making application of this case. Having considered the all circumstances, the monthly maintenance allowance of petitioner is hereby enhanced to Rs. 3,500 from the amount of Rs.1,000/-.” 4. Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner has to look after the 2 (two) children and the old ailing parents, by the remaining amount after paying the enhanced maintenance, the petitioner will hardly be able to manage his family. As such, the enhancement be interfered with and set aside. 5. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order as the reasoning as provided is wholly justified and the basis so provided cannot be questioned. 6. As such, the enhancement be interfered with and set aside. 5. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order as the reasoning as provided is wholly justified and the basis so provided cannot be questioned. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel and the circumstances that emerged from the records, this court is of the view that the enhanced amount is required to be interfered with. It is interfered accordingly. On assessment, the petitioner shall pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the respondent, as the respondent is also living with 1(one) child. The amount shall be paid in the mode as prescribed by the earlier order dated 03.07.2006 or the petitioner may transfer the said amount to the account of the respondent, if the details of the account is provided to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed.