Judgment and Order : 1. Heard Mr. R. Rutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.09.2016 delivered in Misc. Case No. 70 of 2015 by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, this revisional petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The judge, Family Court has by the impugned order, conclusively determined that in 2005 the respondent has retired from his service and he had been getting the pension of Rs. 17,000/-. 3. That apart, it has been recorded that his elder son has been suffering from mental illness and he has to spend a good amount of money for his treatment. On such premises and on the finding that after divorce the present petitioner has been living separately from the husband without any alimony or maintenance, the Family Court has directed payment of monthly maintenance the extent of Rs. 2,200/- to the petitioner. The Family Court has however not omitted to record that the petitioner is suffering from cancer and she is required to have regular medical attendance. 4. Being aggrieved by the said quantification of the maintenance fundamentally, this petition has been filed to challenge the impugned judgment and order. At the direction of this Court, Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has produced the documents relating to the pension payment of the respondent. From the bank account maintained in the U.C.O bank [the savings account No. 22750100001829] it has revealed that the respondent in the month of December has received a sum of Rs. 20,616/- as pension for the month of November, 2016. Thus, the pensionary benefits that the respondent receives per month is above Rs. 20,000/-. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the quantification of the maintenance is unjust, unreasonable and without consideration of the relevant factors. Mr. 20,616/- as pension for the month of November, 2016. Thus, the pensionary benefits that the respondent receives per month is above Rs. 20,000/-. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the quantification of the maintenance is unjust, unreasonable and without consideration of the relevant factors. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has strongly contested the said proposition and submitted that if the quantification is viewed in the perspective of the illness of his elder son for whom the regular medical expenses are required, old age of the respondent and compulsory engagement of the attendant for discharging the essential domestic works, it may not appear unreasonable or inadequate calling for any interference. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel as well as the records as produced. 6. Having considered all the components which are required to be considered for determining a reasonable and modest maintenance, this Court is of the view that the sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the petitioner would be just and reasonable and that will not create any hardship for the respondent and his son who is ailing from mental illness. The respondent shall pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month within 10th day of every English calendar month w.e.f. 01.01.2017, without any interruption. 7. The petitioner is directed to furnish her bank account details to Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent within a week from today so that the said amount can directly be remitted to the account of the petitioner by the respondent. But this Court will preserve the rate of maintenance for purpose of accounting the arrear maintenance which the respondent is obligated to pay. The arrear maintenance shall be paid by 6th equal instalments starting from 01.01.2017 and the said instalments shall be paid along with the regular monthly maintenance as directed. With these observations and directions, this petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.