ORDER 1. Even after service of notice, the respondents are not appearing since last three dates, therefore, the matter is heard finally. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier in the year 2012 he was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month maintenance to the respondents, who are his wife and minor daughter and son and he was diligently complying with the order but suddenly wife preferred an application under section 127 CrPC for modification of the maintenance amount and without granting him proper opportunity of hearing, the Trial Court has enhanced the maintenance more than three times within five years without assigning any good and sufficient reason. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that petitioner is a labourer and works at Scrap shop and hardly earns Rs. 10,000/- per month and he has to maintain her wife with whom he entered into marriage after the respondent No. 1 deserted him. The Family Court has considered that the respondent No. 1 has started residing in a rented accommodation due to marriages of her brothers but in her application before the Family Court itself in para 2 she has stated that she is still residing with her father. The respondent No. 1 herself works in a factory and earns a lot. The amount is excessive and beyond his capacity to pay, therefore, it be reduced to a reasonable amount. 4. Learned Counsel fairly proposed that the amount sanctioned in favour of the petitioner in the year 2012 may be doubled and Rs.6,000/- may be awarded in favour of the respondents and he will pay the same, as earlier he was paying the maintenance religiously. 5. The learned Trial Court has considered the change in circumstances, the fact that the respondent No. 1 has started living separately from her father is mentioned in para 4 of the application and fact mentioned in para 3 that she is living with her parents appears to be an error of fact. The learned Family Court has considered escalation in the costs of living, inflation, growing age of the children and all these facts cannot be questioned or be denied, therefore, so far as enhancement of maintenance is concerned that appears necessary. But so far as quantum is concerned within five years the Family Court has enhanced the amount from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. But so far as quantum is concerned within five years the Family Court has enhanced the amount from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and in my considered opinion it requires some modification. 6. Considering the earlier order, the change in the circumstances, the evidence produced and other facts and circumstances of the case, Rs. 6,000/- would be just and proper, therefore, the petition is partly allowed. The order of the learned family Court dated 27.3.2018 is modified to the extent that the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month in all to the respondents jointly in place of Rs. 10,000/- as directed by the Family Court. 7. With the aforesaid modification, the petition is partly allowed and disposed of.