JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this criminal revision petition, filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the judgment and order dated 27.03.2012 delivered in Misc.320 of 2010 by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, has been challenged. 3. The solitary ground that has been projected in this petition is that without any tenable evidence by the impugned judgment the petitioner has been ordered to pay maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondents. Out of which, the respondent No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/- whereas the respondent No.2 is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,000/-. 4. Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the observation made in the impugned judgment that the petitioner has claimed to be a day labourer earning only Rs.1500/- per month and stated that in absence of any evidence, the Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay the said amount of Rs.3,000/- for the respondents. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has contended that the petitioner does not have any means to pay the maintenance allowance as ordered. 5. From the other side, Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner works as a mason and earns @ Rs.6000-7000/- per month. That apart, he has some landed property. 6. Be that as it may, this court having scrutinized the records finds that no evidence, except the oral testimony, relating to the income of the petitioner has been laid. Since the petitioner is a married person and has raised the family, this court can make some guesswork about his income. May be so he does not have the adequate means to pay the entire amount of maintenance as ordered by the Family Court, but the petitioner cannot avoid obligation to maintain his wife and daughter. He cannot be allowed to push the respondents to vagrancy. 7. Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has further submitted that the petitioner is not paying the maintenance and he is avoiding the payment of maintenance by resorting to various ploys. This is an unfortunate situation this court is confronted with. The parties shall be at liberty to reconcile their differences for living together. 7. Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has further submitted that the petitioner is not paying the maintenance and he is avoiding the payment of maintenance by resorting to various ploys. This is an unfortunate situation this court is confronted with. The parties shall be at liberty to reconcile their differences for living together. Till their relation are reconstructed, the petitioner shall pay the respondents a sum of Rs.2,000/-, [Rs.1,000/- for each of the respondents] within 10th day of every calendar month and the said amount shall be remitted to the respondent No.1 by money order. The petitioner shall bear the money order charge. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not pay this sum of maintenance as determined by this court under this order, the respondents may approach the Family Court for taking the stringent action as provided under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. or with Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. This court places high hope that the petitioner shall not create such situation to compel the respondents approach the Family Court for enforcement. 8. With this observation and modification in the impugned order, this petition stands partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties.