JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. AK Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.07.2016 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in case No. Miscellaneous 205 of 2015 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to his minor daughter i.e. the respondent no.2, in total Rs. 7,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.07.2016. It has been further directed that the said amount shall be sent by money order and the money order commission shall be borne by the petitioner. 3. Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.1 is working under a government establishment and it would be evident from the testimony of PW-2. But that aspect was not considered while determining the maintenance of the respondent No.1. That apart, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has placed a salary certificate issued by the competent authority wherefrom it can be had that though the gross salary of the petitioner is Rs.6,351/- but after deduction on various heads he is receiving only Rs 3,683.94 per month. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has further submitted that the direction for maintenance as passed by the Family Court is based on no reason or evidentiary foundation and as such the entire order is perverse and liable to be interfered with by this Court. 4. On the other hand, Mr. AK Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that true it is that the respondent No. 1 is working in a government establishment but her engagement is on No Work No Pay basis and there is no certainty of the said income. However, he has fairly submitted that from that engagement the respondent No. 1 is earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, but she has to maintain her children including the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 2 is studying in class X. The respondent No. 1 has to bear all the educational expenses for giving proper education to her daughter. The petitioner has responsibility to contribute for that purpose and maintain both the respondents properly. 5. 3,000/- per month, but she has to maintain her children including the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 2 is studying in class X. The respondent No. 1 has to bear all the educational expenses for giving proper education to her daughter. The petitioner has responsibility to contribute for that purpose and maintain both the respondents properly. 5. Having regard to all these aspects, this court is of the view that the impugned order is grossly unreasonable and hence it is interfered with and the direction is modified, as consequence thereof. 6. Now, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month in total out of which Rs.500/- would go in the account of the respondent No.1 and the remaining Rs.2,000/- would go in the account of the respondent No.2. The payment of maintenance at the modified rate shall be effective from 01.07.2016. The arrears that would accrue may be paid by the petitioner in 10 (ten) equal installments along with the monthly maintenance which shall be paid by the 10th day of every English calendar month by money order. The installment of the arrear shall be paid by the same day. However, if the respondent No.1 furnishes her bank account details, the petitioner may by way of transfer remit the maintenance allowance for both the respondents by the same stipulated day. 7. With this observation and direction this petition stands partly allowed to the extent, as indicated above.