C.R. Sarma, J.

1. By this revision petition, the petitioner-wife has challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment and order, dated 15.07.2009, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, in Misc. Case No. 116/2009, whereby and where under, the learned Judge, awarded maintenance allowance of Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner, thereby modifying the earlier interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 20,000/- per month, granted by the order, dated 25.04.2009, passed in Misc.(Int.)117 of 2009.

2. I have heard Mr. D.P. Kundu, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Guha, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Rathor, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent.

3. Mr. Kundu, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, taking this Court through the impugned judgment and order, dated 15.07.2009, the judgment and order, dated 25.04.2009 aforesaid, and the pleadings of the parties, has submitted that, the learned Judge, Family Court, committed error and illegality by reducing the maintenance allowance, without any evidence on record in support of such modification and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to establish her case by adducing evidence. According to the learned senior counsel, the learned trial Judge also, committed gross error and illegality by relying on the Photostat copies of the documents, submitted by the respondent, without any evidence with regard to the contents of the said documents and also without forming any opinion under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). It is submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that the impugned judgment and order having been passed without complying with the statutory requirement, prescribed by Sections 15 and 17 of the Act, can't be allowed to stand. It is further submitted, by the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to challenge the correctness of the documents, submitted by the respondent and relied on by the learned Judge and that this caused much prejudice to the petitioner. It has also been submitted, that the decision rendered by the learned Judge, Family Court, is not based on reasons and as such the same can't stand the test of law. The learned senior counsel, has further submitted, that the learned Judge, without any evidence on record and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, made certain adverse observations, against the petitioner, effecting her conduct, which are liable to be set aside and quashed. In support of his contentions, Mr. Kundu, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has relied on the following decisions:-

(1) V. Markendeya and other vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & other, (1989)3 SCC 191

(2) Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, (2008)2 SCC 316

(3) K.A. Abdul Jaleel vs. T.A. Shahida, (2003)4 SCC 166

(4) Shabana Bano vs. Imran Khan (2010)1 SCC 666

(5) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Jogendra Singh, AIR 1963 1618

(6) Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer vs. V. Narasaiah, (2001)3 SCC 530

(7) Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Invest Import, (1981)1 SCC 80

(8) Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare and other, (1975)1 SCC 559

(9) State of Gujarat vs. Shantilal Mangaldas and other, (1969)1 SCC 509

(10) Gullappalli Nageswara Rao etc. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and other, 1960(1) SCR 580

(11) A.K. Roy v. Union of India and other, (1982)1 SCC 271

(12) State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and other, (2004)5 SCC 573

(13) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur and other, (2004)2 SCC 370

(14) Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited vs. S.L. Vaswani and another, (2010)2 SCC 142.

(15) Union of India vs. Kuldeep Singh, (2004)2 SCC 590

(16) LIC of India vs. R. Dhandapani, (2006)13 SCC 613

(17) Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. vs. A. Unnikrishnan and another, (2006)13 SCC 619

(18) Wander Ltd. and another vs. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990 (Supp)