JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. RG Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. C. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 20.05.2016 delivered in Criminal Misc. (125)-84 of 2015 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Kailasahar, Unakoti, Tripura. 3. It is an admitted position that the petitioner and the respondent are living separately and the respondent has not been providing any maintenance to the petitioner. In that circumstance, the respondent herein had approached the Family Court, Kailasahar, Unakoti, Tripura for having the monthly maintenance allowance from the petitioner herein. 4. After the reply was filed by the petitioner against the petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C the Judge, Family Court, Kailasahar on consideration of the judicial records, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent. It has been further directed that the amount shall be paid by 7th day of every English calendar month from the date of the judgment i.e. 20.05.2016. Being dissatisfied thereof, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. 5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has fundamentally raised two grounds against the said order viz. (i) the petitioner has given ‘Talak’ to the respondent and as such the respondent being the divorced wife is not entitled to get any maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C and (ii) the amount of maintenance as quantified by the Judge, Family Court, Kailasahar, Unakoti District is too exorbitant that the petitioner herein will not be able to pay regularly the said amount as he has been working as a mason. Construction works for his employment is now a days not that regular. 6. On appearing for the other side, Ms. Bhowmik, learned counsel has stated that despite the said order dated 20.05.2016, the respondent has not been paying the maintenance to the petitioner and the petitioner is in a serious hardship. 7. In this regard, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has submitted that the matter had been amicably settled and as per condition of that settlement, the petitioner has already deposited Rs.50,000/- to a person for the purpose that when the settlement would come into effect, the said amount shall be paid to the respondent. 8. 7. In this regard, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has submitted that the matter had been amicably settled and as per condition of that settlement, the petitioner has already deposited Rs.50,000/- to a person for the purpose that when the settlement would come into effect, the said amount shall be paid to the respondent. 8. This court has interacted with the petitioner and the respondent and has thereafter come to an inference that the money did not admittedly reach the respondent herein and she is also not getting the maintenance. 9. In this circumstance, this court is of the opinion that for avoiding any further complexity in the matter, the monthly maintenance allowance as has been quantified by the Judge, Family Court, Kailasahar, Unakoti District may be reduced to Rs.2,500/- per month and the said amount shall be paid to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.2016 without fail. The petitioner herein shall be under obligation to pay Rs.2,500/- to the respondent within the 7th day of every English month by Money Order or if the respondent provided the petitioner the details of her bank account, the said amount may be remitted to her account of the respondent (the account of the petitioner in Criminal Misc. (125)-84 of 2015). In the event of remitting the money by Money Order, the money order charge shall also be borne by the petitioner herein. The arrear of the maintenance shall be paid by the petitioner herein by 10(ten) equal installments and the installments shall be paid with the monthly maintenance. If there is any breach of this order, the respondent shall be at liberty to approach the Judge, Family Court, Kailasahar, Unakoti District for taking the stringent action under Section 125(3) and Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. 10. With this observation, this petition is allowed to the limited extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties.