ORDER : Ananda Sen, J. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the judgment dated 18.3.2015 in Maintenance Case No.50 of 2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma. 2. The claimant of Maintenance Case No.50 of 2011 happens to be the mother of this petitioner. The claimant Wahida Khatoon has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance of her son on the ground that her son working at BCCL is not maintaining her. She stated that her husband was an employee of BCCL, who died in harness and this petitioner Mohammad Qyum Ansari, who is her son, was employed in BCCL on compassionate ground. She further states that death-cum-retiral benefits were divided equally among dependent of the deceased. She further states that her son is getting hefty salary but is not maintaining her, though he has duty bound to maintain his mother. 3. The petitioner appeared and filed his show cause before the court below. He has admitted the relationship of mother and son. He has further mentioned that his mother has received Rs.5,00,000/- which is the provident fund of his deceased father and has also received Rs.2,00,000/- which is an amount of gratuity. He further stated that his mother is getting sufficient amount by way of interest and is also getting Rs.500/- as old age pension. He admits that he is an employee of BCCL. He further stated that his other brothers are also doing private job and his mother is not claiming maintenance against them. On this submission, he prays for dismissal of the application. 4. The claimant has examined three witnesses, Wahida Khatoon A.W 1 is the claimant herself, Hasibullah Ansari, A.W.2 is another son of the applicant and Sahadat Minya is A.W.3. 5. Opposite party also examined four witnesses, namely, Faudi Paswan is P.W.1, Salamat Ansari is P.W.2, Sarun Khatoon is P.W.3 and Qyum Ansari is P.W.4. 6. The court below after hearing the parties directed to pay Rs.3000/- as maintenance to Wahida Khatoon and further directed to pay Rs.40,000/-as litigation cost in ten equal instalment. 7. I have gone through the impugned judgment and the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner and opposite party. 8. From the impugned judgment, it transpires that specific stand has been taken by the petitioner and his mother has received Rs.5,00,000/- which was the provident fund amount of his father. 7. I have gone through the impugned judgment and the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner and opposite party. 8. From the impugned judgment, it transpires that specific stand has been taken by the petitioner and his mother has received Rs.5,00,000/- which was the provident fund amount of his father. Further it is not denied that the claimant has received Rs.2,00,000/- on account of gratuity of her late husband. It is also not denied that claimant was getting Rs.500/- as old age pension. There is nothing in the impugned judgment which suggests otherwise. 9. It is admitted that claimant is the mother of the petitioner. It is also admitted that he has got compassionate appointment after his father, who was also an employee of BCCL. It is also admitted that the mother-claimant is not being maintained by the petitioner, who happens to be the son. The argument of the petitioner that the other sons of the claimant are also earning, thus, he is not liable to maintain her mother which cannot be accepted. The petitioner being son is the duty bound to maintain his mother. More so, the petitioner has obtained compassionate appointment on the death of his father. It has come in evidence that other brothers are maintaining the claimant to the best of their ability but this petitioner is not doing so. This cannot be a ground not to maintain the claimant, The fact that other brother of the petitioner is maintaining the claimant, and the claimant is getting Rs.500/- as old age pension has not considered by the court below while fixing the amount of maintenance. The claimant is getting Rs.500/- as old age pension and she has received the amount of death-cum-retiral benefit of her husband, should have been considered. The fact that other sons are also maintaining the mother has also not been considered while fixing the amount of maintenance. 10. Thus, considering the entire aspect the amount of maintenance @ Rs.3000/- per month as awarded by the court below needs interference. On the facts discussed above, maintenance amount of Rs.3000/- is reduced to Rs.2500/- per month to be paid by the petitioner regularly. The litigation cost of Rs.40,000/- needs no interference. 11. With the aforesaid direction/observation, this application stands disposed of. Application disposed of.