ORDER : A.S. Boppana, J. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 24.01.2015 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 62/2014. 2. The respondents herein had filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the petitioner herein. The Court below after taking note of the rival contentions has directed the petitioner herein to pay the sum of Rs. 2,500/- each to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. The claim made by the mother of the respondents who was the first petitioner before the Court below has been rejected. The petitioner herein assailing the order dated 24.01.2015 by which the maintenance was ordered has presented this petition. Both, the petitioner as well as respondents have filed the additional documents along with the application in IA.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2016 respectively. Considering that both the parties seek to bring on record the additional documents and since the same would be relevant for consideration, the applications are allowed. The documents are taken on record and in that light the rival contentions put forth by the parties are taken into consideration. 3. Insofar as the contentions that had been put forth before the Court below with regard to the claim as put forth for maintenance and the first petitioner before the Court below namely the daughter-in-law of the petitioner herein not being entitled to maintenance, the issue had been considered by the Court below keeping in view the provisions of the Personal Law as also the claim as made under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the light of the obligation under the Personal Law. The claim of the daughter-in-law need not be gone into in the instant petition since in any event the rejection of the claim of the daughter-in-law is not an issue before this Court. The only question for consideration is with regard to the quantum of maintenance that has been ordered by the Court below to the respondents herein who are the grand children. The only question for consideration is with regard to the quantum of maintenance that has been ordered by the Court below to the respondents herein who are the grand children. Keeping in view the nature of the contentions that is put forth by the petitioner before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner while contending that the petitioner herein is not liable to pay the maintenance amount and that in any event the quantum as ordered by the Court below is not justified would contend that though the petitioner was earlier employed in the Hatti Gold Mines, he has subsequently retired from the service and at present he has been getting pension of Rs. 2,436/- from Employees Provident Fund as per the documents produced along with the application as the additional document. It is the further contention on behalf of the petitioner that Section 370(3) of the Mohammaden Law provides for maintenance of the grand children by the grand father and if that aspect of the matter is kept in view the maternal grand father is also liable to maintain the grand children and therefore, the order ought to have been in that regard and the liability could not have been fastened only on the petitioner herein. In that view, it is contended that not only the maintenance as ordered is liable to be paid but the quantum as ordered is also on the higher side which is required to be reduced. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents would, however, seek to sustain the order passed by the Court below. Insofar as the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner that he has subsequently retired from service and he does not have sufficient income, the learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the additional documents produced along with the application to point out the amount that was credited to the account of the petitioner herein towards terminal benefits and also the investment that had been made by the petitioner in purchasing the property. In that view, it is contended that the petitioner herein has sufficient income and when there is obligation to maintain the grand children the Court below was justified in its conclusion and the quantum awarded also does not call for interference. 5. In that view, it is contended that the petitioner herein has sufficient income and when there is obligation to maintain the grand children the Court below was justified in its conclusion and the quantum awarded also does not call for interference. 5. In the light of what has been contended, from the very contention as put forth by the petitioner in the petition and as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Personal Law through Section 370 (3) provides for the obligation on the part of the grand father to maintain the grand children. If that be the position, the fact that the petitioner has an obligation to maintain the respondents cannot be disputed. Though it is contended that the maternal grand father also has an obligation to maintain the grand children, in the present facts the liability is not required to be extended in that fashion. I am of the said opinion, for the reason that the son namely the father of the respondents who had expired was living with petitioner herein. That apart, presently after the death of the son of the petitioner, the daughter-in-law with the children who are abandoned and not maintained in the marital home are presently residing with her father and to that extent in any event, he has been taking care of the daughter and also attending to the other needs of the grand-children. Therefore, if this aspect of the matter is kept in view, the liability as fastened on the petitioner herein would be justified. 6. The question however for consideration is with regard to the quantum of the amount that is directed to be paid. It is no doubt seen from the order of the Court below in the background of the evidence that had been tendered by the petitioner before the Court below as PW. 1 and the respondent who had examined himself as RW.1, at the point when the Court below considered the matter, the petitioner herein was still employed in the Hatti Gold Mines and the salary that was being drawn was taken into consideration. It is no doubt true, that at present he has retired from service and the additional documents produced would indicate that he is drawing pension under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. It is no doubt true, that at present he has retired from service and the additional documents produced would indicate that he is drawing pension under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. The said pension which is being drawn certainly is the amount towards the contribution I-that was made towards the Employees Provident Fund while he was in service and therefore, the said amount cannot be taken as the only income of the petitioner at this point in time. This is also evident from the fact that a lump-sum amount was credited to the account of the petitioner which was towards the terminal benefits. The fact that the petitioner has invested the amounts in purchasing the plots will also disclose that the petitioner has sufficient income and the investments are accordingly, made rather than utilising the same for the livelihood. 7. Be that as it may, considering the age of the respondents, I am of the opinion that the sum of Rs. 2,500/- which has been awarded is marginally on the higher side and therefore, it would be appropriate to direct that the petitioner herein to pay the maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- each per month in modification of the order of the Court below. It is further made clear that if in future any enhancement is required, it is left open to file an appropriate petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. In that light the order dated 24.01.2015 impugned herein is modified only to the extent to order that the petitioner shall pay the sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to each of the respondents herein as against the quantum that is ordered by the Court below. In all other respects the order is confirmed. The petition is accordingly disposed of.