Oh alright :) 2000tyl ~ around € / $ 200 :-)
I confused it with a different post where OP was based in Turkey.
Sorry for that.
Is Amazon really a viable option? Don't shipping and tax add to the cost extremely?
https://www.amazon.com/Celestron-21037-PowerSeeker-70EQ-Telescope/ - Mount undersized, eyepiece kit very poor, optics okay. The longer 70/900 from iOptron produces a bit clearer image but the mount is even less ideal.
The 70AZ (e.g. AstroMaster 70AZ) with mount and leaver (not the U/fork mount) would be more ideal for day-time use. Still stability issues.
z114 costs $149. Better table-top. Shows much more regarding space. A stool/box and for day-time an erecting eyepiece.
If Amazon isn't a must,
and you have to pay import fees, taxes, shipping, (or do they cover that to Bangladesh?),
If you need a small telescope you can also use with a camera relatively well,
in this price-range there are 70, 60mm Maksutovs that -while not ideal- will outperform any short small refractor like the 70/400.
Do you have a camera tripod?
(€35 shipping)
There are some no-name 70mm Maks on eBay, Aliexpress China and such for ~$80 but with installed zoom eyepiece 25-75x or so.
https://www.amazon.com/Celestron-52238-Mini-Spotting-Scope/dp/B001MUHQBI
Cheap, compact (will work on any decent camera tripod). Large obstruction costs contrast compared to something like a 70/900 refractor. But those need a better mount that costs more than the telescope.
the z114, z130 would be so much better for space.
"Mount" cheap Kyrre stool https://images.app.goo.gl/S8yBDR23crEmzTcLA (as you can't extend a cheap telescope tripod fully anyway, it won't even be that much lower. Observing seated is more ergonomic anyway!).
Erecting eyepiece / adapter: They cost contrast. But a good reflector telescope with one of these for terrestrial is better than a poor cheap telescope. https://images.app.goo.gl/FcNFVv5kS2ufYEur8
A 114mm, 130mm aperture has about four times the surface area of the small 60, 70mm telescope, much higer resolution, higher magnification possible.
Yes, the refractors require less maintenance. But my first reflector never required collimation, worked out of the box. I only had one reflector that was badly mis-collimated due to rough shipping, and even it showed something. TL;DR: Usually they hold collimation well, and it's no mystery.
I just checked, sadly the Celestron c90's price just increased to $219, else it might have been a good choice.
There's the c70 though, it's not as good as the c90, but might be ideal for younger children as they also work well for day-time use and are so compact they can easily travel with it. Though a small rigid tripod instead of the table-tripod might be a good idea :-) As it's so light every camera tripod will probably do as long as it's not competely plastic. The optical performance is limited, moon is nice, planets are identifiable but the contrast does not allow overly high magnifications.
The 70mm refractor is decent, less portable, more contrast than the c70. Still, it's limited. There's the cheaper 90mm Reflectors, but they cost as much as a 5" reflector and those show quite a bit more.
There's the new Mini lightbridge series, http://www.meade.com/products/telescopes/lightbridge-mini/lightbridge-mini-114.html
And the AWB Onesky and Lightbridge 130. Those have the least compromises in this price range, offer the best performance, can easily be handled by children, but also maxes out the budget ($199). I would normally recommend this over all others, but I can understand that it's also a budget question.
There's also the Starblast 4.5 but it performs a bit less well regarding planets, still beats the 3" telescopes. While the AWB can be used without a table (kids on a small camping chair) the smaller table tops definitely require a box or table.
There's also the Skyscanner 100, while not exactly made for planet observations, it's a nice "porch telescope" with a sturdy table-top mount.
Darn, many telescope sets got expensive so shortly before Christmas :-P