JUDGMENT : C.S. Dias, J. The appellants in this appeal were the petitioners in OP No.432/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Tirur. The respondent in this appeal was the respondent in the above original petition. The respondent is the husband of the first appellant and the father of the appellants two and three. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their litigate status in the original petition as 'petitioners ' and 'respondent'. 2. The petitioners had filed the original petition against the respondent, under Explanation (f) to Sec.7(1) of the Family Courts Act, seeking an order for past maintenance for a period of thirty six months preceding the filing of the original petition. 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, in the above original petition is as follows:-The first petitioner was married to the respondent on 30.5.1994. The petitioners two and three were born in their wedlock. The older son is aged 19 years and the younger daughter is aged 7 years. Although, initially they had a happy married life, the respondent's behaviour and nature changed in due course of time. He used to insult and abuse the first petitioner for trivial reasons. At the time of marriage, the respondent was working in Defence Department in Doha. The first petitioner used to do all the household chores in the matrimonial home, as per the instructions of the respondent's mother. The respondent's mother was in a habit of insulting the first petitioner in the presence of others. After the first petitioner delivered the second petitioner, the respondent failed to perform his filial obligations, as per the customs in their community or meet to the delivery expenses of the child. After the first petitioner conceived the third petitioner, the respondent treated her with severe cruelty. He also had illicit relationship with other women. The first petitioner informed about the cruel acts of the respondent to her family members. Even though several mediation talks were held, no rapprochement was effected. For the past several years, the petitioners are living at the mercy of the first petitioner's parents. The respondent has willfully neglected to maintain the petitioners. From 1.10.2002 onwards, the petitioners are residing in the first petitioner's parental house. Hence a decree for past maintenance may be passed. 4. The respondent entered appearance in the original petition and filed his written objection. The respondent has willfully neglected to maintain the petitioners. From 1.10.2002 onwards, the petitioners are residing in the first petitioner's parental house. Hence a decree for past maintenance may be passed. 4. The respondent entered appearance in the original petition and filed his written objection. He controverted the allegations in the original petition. It was his case that, the first petitioner without sufficient cause or reason deserted him. The first petitioner is working as a scribe. She, for her independent life, willfully deserted the respondent and his mother. On numerous occasions, the first petitioner quarreled with the respondent and left the matrimonial home. The respondent has on several occasions condoned the misbehavour, mis-deeds and short-tempered nature of the first petitioner, for the sake of the family. The entire financial needs of the family have been met by the respondent. The respondent has been maintaining the petitioners by sending an amount of Rs.8,000/-per month to the first petitioner. It was the first petitioner who informed the respondent that she does not require any amount as maintenance. The first petitioner took the children and left the matrimonial home, without the consent of the respondent. Though the respondent tried to contact the petitioners two and three over telephone, the first petitioner prohibited the respondent from talking to his children. In 2008, he went to the house of the first petitioner to bring back the petitioners, but the first petitioner abused and sent him away. The petitioners are living separately from respondent without sufficient reason or cause and, therefore, they are not entitled for a decree for past maintenance. 5. Along with the original petition, the first petitioner had also filed OP No.185/2013, seeking a decree for return of gold ornaments. She also, on behalf of herself and petitioners two and three, filed M.C No.155/2013, seeking an order for monthly maintenance under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Family Court consolidated and jointly tried OP No.185/2013 along with OP 432/2013 and M.C No.155/2013. 6. The first petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exts P1 and P2 were marked through her. The respondent and a witness were examined as RWs 1 and 2 and Exts R1 to R9 were marked through them. 7. The Family Court consolidated and jointly tried OP No.185/2013 along with OP 432/2013 and M.C No.155/2013. 6. The first petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exts P1 and P2 were marked through her. The respondent and a witness were examined as RWs 1 and 2 and Exts R1 to R9 were marked through them. 7. The Family Court after appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, by the impugned common order dated 30.6.2017, partly allowed OP 432/2013, directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.3,96,000/- towards past maintenance for the petitioners for thirty six months, at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.3,000/- each to the petitioners two and three. The Family Court also partly allowed MC 155/2013 by directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.3,000/- each to the petitioners two and three. OP No.185/2013 was dismissed. 8. It is assailing the order passed by the Family Court in OP 432/2013 that this Mat. Appeal is filed. 9. Heard Smt Deepa C., the first appellant, who appeared as party-in-person and Sri. P. Venugopal, the learned counsel for the respondent. 10. The first appellant argued that the Family Court has gone wrong in limiting the past maintenance amount to Rs.5,000/- for her and Rs.3,000/- each to the petitioners two and three. There is no reason assigned in the impugned order limiting the petitioners' claim to the said amount. The petitioners' had claimed Rs.6,000/-per month for the first petitioner and Rs.4,000/- each for the petitioners two and three. The petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.4,86,000/- as past maintenance, for a period of thirty six months, prior to the date of filing of the original petition, i.e, three years preceding 19.11.2012. The Family Court has erred by only ordering an amount of Rs.3,96,000/- as past maintenance to the petitioners for thirty six months. The respondent is an NRI, and that he is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, the petitioners are legally entitled to live in the same status and standard of living as to that of the respondent. The Family Court has without any basis reduced an amount of Rs.90,000/- from what was claimed in the original petition. Thus, she sought for modifying the impugned order by enhancing the past maintenance allowance as claimed in the original petition. 11. The Family Court has without any basis reduced an amount of Rs.90,000/- from what was claimed in the original petition. Thus, she sought for modifying the impugned order by enhancing the past maintenance allowance as claimed in the original petition. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the Family Court has rightly fixed the past maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.8,000/- payable by the respondent to the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners had challenged the order passed by the Family Court in M.C 155/2013 before this Court in RP(FC) No.124/2018. This Court, by its order, dated 26.2.2019, partly allowed the revision petition. This Court modified the order passed by the Family Court and has ordered the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/-, to the first petitioner, from the date of order in the RP(FC). This Court declined to interfere with the amount ordered to be paid to the petitioners two and three. Likewise, this Court only modified the payment of future maintenance allowance to the first petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court after re-appreciating the pleadings and evidence in M.C No.155/2013 passed by the Family Court, declined to interfere with the order passed in MC 155/2013, in respect of the past maintenance allowance payable to the petitioners. Hence, the same parameter/yardstick, as to quantum of maintenance, may be adopted by this Court in dealing with this appeal. 12. The question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the amount of past monthly maintenance payable by the respondent to the petitioners at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.3,000/-to the petitioners two and three, is reasonable and just? 13. OP 432/2013 was originally before the Family Court, Malappuram, on 19.11.2012 and was numbered as OP No.113/2012. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the present Court and renumbered. It was subsequent to that, the petitioners filed M.C 155/2013. The relief sought for in OP 432/2013 and M.C 155/2013 is almost identical. The only difference is that, in the original petition the claim was for past maintenance and MC the claim was for future maintenance. The petitioners had sought for the same quantum of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.4,000/- each to the petitioners two and three. 14. The only difference is that, in the original petition the claim was for past maintenance and MC the claim was for future maintenance. The petitioners had sought for the same quantum of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.4,000/- each to the petitioners two and three. 14. The Family Court, by the impugned common order, directed the respondent to pay past maintenance allowance to the petitioners for a period of thirty six months at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.3,000/- each to the petitioners two and three. The same quantum of maintenance was ordered to be paid by the respondent to the petitioners in M.C 155/2013. 15. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance allowance ordered in M.C 155/2013, the petitioners filed RP(FC) 124/2018. This Court, after re-appreciating the pleadings and evidence, by its order dated 26.2.2019, found that the petitioners were not entitled for any enhancement of maintenance allowance. Only the future maintenance of first petitioner was enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/-, that too from the date of order. This Court did not interfere with the maintenance allowance payable by the respondent to the petitioners two and three, and did not modify payment of enhanced maintenance from the date of the maintenance case. 16. According to us, the findings of this Court in RP(FC) 124/2018, which arises out of the same common order is to be followed by us in this appeal as the parties are the same and the subject-matter in dispute in MC 155/2013 is directly and substantially in issue in OP 432/2013. Therefore, judicial discipline and propriety demands that we adopt the same yardstick as found by this Court in RP(FC) 124/2018. 17. In addition to the above finding, we also hold that even though the petitioners had a case that the respondent is an NRI and that he is drawing a salary of Rs.1,50,000/-per month. They have not proved the said assertion. 18. The Family Court after considering the pleadings and evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent is liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.3,000/- each to the petitioners two and three for a period of thirty six months, thus totaling to an amount of Rs.3,96,000/-. 18. The Family Court after considering the pleadings and evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent is liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.3,000/- each to the petitioners two and three for a period of thirty six months, thus totaling to an amount of Rs.3,96,000/-. We find that the amount of monthly maintenance allowance ordered by the Family Court at Rs.8,000/- as past maintenance, for the petitioners, is reasonable and moderate. There is no circumstances warranting the grant of past maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.4,000/- each to the petitioners, as claimed in the original petition. Thus, we confirm the order passed by the Family Court in OP No.432/2013 by directing the respondent to pay past maintenance to the petitioners/appellants at the rate of Rs.8,000/-per month for a period of thirty six months as ordered in OP 432/2013. In the result, this Mat. Appeal is dismissed.