AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Railways. The petitioners are also present in Court.

2. The petitioners have moved the Court under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, for enhancement of maintenance amount awarded by the Principal Judge, Family Court of Rs.8,000/- by order dated 07.03.2018 passed in Maintenance Case No.15 of 2016.

3. The petitioner no. 1 is wife and petitioners no. 2 and 3 are daughter and son of the opposite party no. 2, who is working under the Railways. Due to reasons mentioned in the application filed by the petitioners before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, in Maintenance Case No.15 of 2016, they had to leave the matrimonial home and they are living in the house of the parents of petitioner no. 1.

4. From the order dated 07.03.2018, it transpires that even before the Court below the opposite party no. 2, despite valid service of notice, had not appeared and the matter was decided ex parte.

5. Being conscious of the nature of the dispute, the Court was of the opinion that the opposite party no. 2 must be heard before any final view is taken in the matter. Accordingly, keeping in mind the past conduct of the opposite party no. 2 that he had not appeared before the Court below, the DRM, Sonepur, East Central Railway, was added as opposite party no. 3 in the present proceeding and was directed to ensure presence of the opposite party no. 2 before the Court today.

6. Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 bringing on record copy of letter dated 25.09.2019 issued to the opposite party no. 2 directing him to appear before the Court today and indicating that if he does not do so, departmental proceeding shall be initiated against him. The opposite party no. 2 has received the letter on 25.09.2019 itself. However, neither he is present nor he is represented by any counsel before the Court today when the matter was taken up and heard.

7. In the aforesaid background, this Court is also constrained to proceed ex parte against him.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that opposite party no. 2 earns Rs.40,000/- per month by way of salary and other emoluments and Rs.8,000/- awarded by the Court below is too meager an amount to ensure proper and decent living of the petitioners. It was also submitted that due to opposite party no. 2 being addicted to alcohol and other vices, the petitioner no. 1 was forced to leave the matrimonial home. It was submitted that in such view of the matter, the petitioners should have been granted at least 2/3rd of salary of the opposite party no. 2.

9. On a query of the Court, learned counsel for the Railways (opposite party no. 3) with regard to the monthly emoluments of the opposite party no. 2, submitted that he did not have the exact figure, but it should not be less than Rs.35,000/-.

10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the Court below has not correctly fixed the monthly maintenance as was required to be done. When there was no material before the Court below to rebut the claim of the petitioners that salary of the opposite party no. 2 was Rs.40,000/- and taking into account the fact that the petitioner no.1 herself and her minor son and daughter require substantial financial assistance to live a decent life and also to pursue their education, the Court had to be more sensitive to the requirement of the petitioners in view of the materials before it relating to income of the opposite party no. 2. Today, when before the Court, learned counsel for the Railways has informed that his salary is not less than Rs.35,000/- per month, the Court has no hesitation to allow the application.

11. Accordingly, a consolidated sum of Rs.20,000/- per month is awarded in favour of the petitioners. The same shall be directly credited into account of petitioner no. 1