ORDER : Lodh, J. This is an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the judgment and order dated 14.01.2019, passed in Civil Misc. No.95 of 2018, arising out of T.S.(Divorce) No.251 of 2018, by the learned Judge, Family court, Agartala, West Tripura, whereby the learned Court below directed the appellant to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent. 2. Heard Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband as well as Mr. H. K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife. 3. The main grievance of the appellant-husband is that though the appellant is an employee of ONGC, Tripura, Agartala and having salary of Rs.39,649/-, but, he receives only Rs.19,338/- after various automatic deductions, amounting to Rs.20,311/-. In this situation, the learned Judge, Family Court has passed an order as stated above directing the appellant-husband to pay maintenance pendente lite of Rs.8,000/- to the respondent-wife. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for reducing the maintenance allowance. 4. Per contra, Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has submitted that considering the prevalent market and sky-high rise of prices in essential commodities, even Rs.8,000/- is very minimum to lead a dignified life, which is one of the essential features of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. We have perused the evidence on record and the findings of the learned Judge, Family Court. We find that the wife-respondent at present is staying in her parents’ house as she was forced to stay over there. We also find that there are so many bald allegations levelled against the wife-respondent that the respondent-wife was not interested in having sex/physical relation with the appellant-husband. Further, it has been alleged that the respondent-wife threatened the appellant-husband to commit suicide. 6. We have perused the evidence led by the parties. According to us, these allegations are not substantiated by cogent evidence. These are the normal wear and tear of a marital life and for this the wife should not be forced to be separated from the appellant-husband. The wife is entitled to lead a life at par the standard of the husband. 7. Having considered all aspects, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court and, accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.