JUDGMENT 1. This is an application under Section 19(iv) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the Learned Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. Crl.Misc. 95 of 2020. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and the respondent were married to each other in the year 2016 following Hindu rites and customs and they were blessed with a male child Master Satyadipon Das on 04.09.2017. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed the petition for Divorce which was registered as TS(DIV) 165 of 2019 and the respondent also had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for their son Master Satyodipon Das which was registered Crl.Misc 95 of 2020. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner and the respondent having been staying separately since 04.09.2018 and that the petitioner has been regularly sending money for the upkeep of his son by money order. They petitioner also has been paying the interim maintenance regularly. 5. It is further submitted that after competition of evidence in Crl.Misc. 95 of 2020 and hearing was complete, the Ld Judge of the Family Court by Judgment dated 24.01.2022 disposed of the petition for maintenance vide No. Crl.Misc 95 of 2020 with a direction upon the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance for his minor son Master Satyadipon Das w.e.f. 01.01.2022. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura in case No. Crl.Misc 95 of 2020 the petitioner herein prefers this revision application before this court. 7. For the sake of brevity the parties hereinafter are referred to as in the cause title of Crl.Misc 95 of 2020. 8. It is apparent from the records that the court below while dealing with case Crl.Misc 95 of 2020 set the following points for determination. (i) Whether the petitioner is the legally married wife of the OP and out of their wedlock as son was born namely Master Satyadipon Das? (ii) Whether the OP-husband having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his son Master Satyadipon Das? (iii) Whether the minor son is entitled to maintenance allowance from the OP and if so, up to what extent? 9. (ii) Whether the OP-husband having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his son Master Satyadipon Das? (iii) Whether the minor son is entitled to maintenance allowance from the OP and if so, up to what extent? 9. While dealing with the point no.(i) the court below observed that marriage is not disputed by either party and also the birth of the son Satyadipn Das out of the wedlock the petitioner and the OP. All the witnesses of the petitioner and the OP have also corroborated the fact of marriage of the petitioner and the OP and their son Satyadipon out of their wedlock. Therefore, admitted fact need not be proved. 10. Point No. II and III were taken together for brevity. From the deposition of witnesses, it was observed by the court below that Smt Purnima Barman in her deposition as PW-1 specifically deposed that she has filed the instant maintenance case for her minor son Master Satyadipon Das aged about 4 years who is residing with her and the OP used to pay maintenance @ Rs.2000 per month by post but she was on her work, she could not receive the said money. Howsoever, some arrangement were made for payment but subsequently, the payment became irregular and the OP stopped paying any maintenance for which she has been facing problem to maintain her son alone by her income. She said she is a Govt. Teacher on a fixed scale and it is difficult for her to maintain herself and her son with her salary for which she filed a case for interim maintenance before the Court claiming maintenance for her son R@ Rs.30,000/- per month for his maintenance as well as education expense. She said that her husband is Manager at TSECL and is monthly salary is about Rs.80,000/-. 11. In her cross examination, she admitted that the OP has been paying maintenance as and when required and she has informed the OP about the admission of her son in Bharatiya Vidyabhaban who is studying in Preparatory - I. 12. On the other hand, the OP Sri Krishan Pada Das as OPW-1 specifically deposed that his marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in the month of December, 2016 and that she is a govt. employee and works as a school teacher. On the other hand, the OP Sri Krishan Pada Das as OPW-1 specifically deposed that his marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in the month of December, 2016 and that she is a govt. employee and works as a school teacher. After marriage they started residing in her house but after sometime they shifted to a rented house and thereafter to another rented house. He said that his wife was unable to adjust with his other family members and she sued to quarrel with them and abuse them and wanted to reside separately for which he was compelled to shift to a rented accommodation and since September, 2018 they have been residing separately as she is not willing to stay with him always and on the birthday of his son which is on 04.09.2018 during celebration on a small issue the petitioner verbally abused him and thereafter even assaulted him, due to which he sustained injury for which he was taken for treatment to hospital by his friends and relative but he did not file any FIR upon this incident but again after he and the petitioner started residing separately and his in-laws on a day in the year 2018 suddenly visited his office and started nuisance and also verbally abused him during office hours after which he filed an FIR and after investigation the police submitted charge sheet. OPW-1 also stated they started residing separately, they sent money for maintenance of his son @ Rs.2,000/- - Rs.2,500/- on monthly basis but the petitioner initially refused to receive money and for 6/7 months she did not receive the money but he continued sending it to her. He said that the petitioner called him and said not to send money but inspite of that he used to send money for maintenance of his son. He said he resides with his widow mother, elder brother and his wife and 2 children and his 3 younger brothers. OPW-1 also added that he is willing to maintain his son and as per his capacity and his gross salary is Rs.53,000/- per month and his net salary is Rs.47,000/- and one of the his brothers is employed and other 2 brothers are unemployed. 13. OPW-2 Shri Bachchu Das, deposed that he knew the petitioner, Purnima Barman and the OP, Krishnapada Das. 13. OPW-2 Shri Bachchu Das, deposed that he knew the petitioner, Purnima Barman and the OP, Krishnapada Das. He knew the OP since his childhood and his marriage was solemnized with the petitioner but he cannot recall the date of marriage but the petitioner No.1 no longer resides with the OP. OPW-2 also stated that there was quarrel between the petitioner and the OP and lastly on the day of birthday celebration after which they returned back and at night the OP called the witness and informed that the petitioner No.1 assaulted him but he visited his house the next day and saw blood injury over the upper lip of OP. In cross he stated that he does not remember the date of birthday celebration though he visited there with his family members and no incident took place. 14. OPW-3, Ashim Debnath an inhabitant of the locality of the OP deposed that he knew the OP since his childhood. He further deposed that he attended the house of the OP on the next date of said birthday celebration of his son Satyadipon where he saw blood injury over the upper lip of the OP as there had been quarrel between the petitioner and the OP. In cross he stated the OP is the brother of his friend. He cannot remember the date of birthday of the son of the OP but he visited there on the next day of birthday celebration. 15. The deposition of OP shows that he sends money for maintenance but the amount is not fixed and is also very less i.e. Rs.2000/- to Rs.2500/- per month considering his gross salary which as per his depositions but in his written objection stated that monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs.32000/- but no document regarding salary of the petitioner is submitted and even the petitioner did not produce. However, as guardian it is the liability of both parties to maintain their son. In this case, it is clear that minor son stays with the petitioner and the petitioner is not only maintaining the child but also devoting her time and is taking care of minor and is discharging her duties of mother. However, as guardian it is the liability of both parties to maintain their son. In this case, it is clear that minor son stays with the petitioner and the petitioner is not only maintaining the child but also devoting her time and is taking care of minor and is discharging her duties of mother. Further, the minor son is required to maintained as per status of parties and Exbt 2 shows that though OP used to send money but not in ratio of his salary and his act can be accounted towards his son as liability and not responsibility which is negligent act as a father who should have been concerned more about well being of his son than his salary. Thus, from this point OP acted negligently. Further though OP said that he has his mother and two unemployed brothers but age of his brothers have not been mentioned and he may have social obligation towards them but they are not legally entitled and from discussions of Point No.1 it can be held that minor son Master Satyadipon Das is entitled to maintenance. 16. Finally by the judgment dated 24.01.2022, the court below has observed in the following manner: In the result, the OP Sri Krishna Pada Das is hereby directed to pay Rs.20000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2022 to his son Master Satyadipon Das and send the same to the Bank Account of the petitioner (Satyadipon being minor) vide No.0664010349963, lying in Unite Bank of India, Usha Market Branch, Agartala, payable within 10th day of every English Calendar month until further order. 17. Heard counsel for the parties. 18. Mrs. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the amount of maintenance allowance as directed to be paid by the petitioner in pursuance to the judgment dated 24.01.2022 is on higher side. Considering the responsibilities of the petitioner towards his family members, he cannot pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- as maintenance allowance to the child. 19. On the contrary, Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that considering the status of the father as well of the mother, the child also needs proper upbringing and for that reason the decision of the court below is just and proper and needs no interference. 20. 19. On the contrary, Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that considering the status of the father as well of the mother, the child also needs proper upbringing and for that reason the decision of the court below is just and proper and needs no interference. 20. After perusing the entire record and after hearing both sides and the respondent wife physically present in court, this court passes this consent order. This court is of the opinion that the order passed by the court below needs to be modified. Hence, this court modifies the maintenance allowance of Rs.20,000 which was earlier decided by Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura vide order dated 24.01.2022 in Crl.Misc. 95 of 2020 to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Moreover, for better future prospect of the minor child, the petitioner herein shall also enhance the amount of maintenance by 20% every year. It is needless to say that the petitioner herein shall also take care of the expenses of the child's education presently and also for his higher education with the advent of time. The court cannot shut its eyes when the matter in hand deals with the future of a child. Therefore, if any unforeseen situation arises, the petitioner herein (the father) shall bear all the expenses of medical bills and bills relating to hospitalization. 21. With the above observation, the instant criminal revision petition is allowed in part and disposed of.