ORDER : The instant application is directed against the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro Camp at Tenughat, in M.P. Case No.06/2011, filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The facts of the case is that the petitioners are sons of opposite party No.2. The husband of opposite party No. 2 died in the year 2008 leaving behind 4 sons and 2 daughters. After the death of the father of the petitioners, the opposite party No.2 (mother) has no means to maintain herself and she is presently dependent upon her fourth son. It also transpires from the records that the petitioner no.1 is running a Hotel named as Pappu Hotel at Dhanbad and is earning about Rs.30,000/-per month. The petitioner no.2 is running a motor parts shop near I.E.L. Road Gomia and his monthly income Rs.35,000/-. The petitioner no.3 is running a Hotel namely Khalsa Hotel at Gomia. The fourth son, who was made opposite party no.4 before the learned trial court is a unregistered contractor and the opposite party no.2 (mother) is living with him. The present application has been filed by the mother stating inter alia that though, she is living with her fourth son but she requires maintenance amount from all the son. Before the learned trial court, show-cause was filed by the petitioners, wherein they have stated that they are ready to keep their mother with dignity and honour and has spent substantial amount in the marriage of their sister. It was further stated by the petitioners before the learned trial court that the instant petition for maintenance has been filed by the opposite party No.2 (mother) on behest of her fourth son, who is youngest son of opposite party No.2. It has also been stated by the petitioners before the trial court that during the life time of the father, all sons were separate in mess and properties and after separation, all the petitioners started their own business. It was further stated before the learned trial court that during the riot of 1984, the shop was looted and burnt by the miscreant, for that a compensation was also awarded by the Government. 3. It was further stated before the learned trial court that during the riot of 1984, the shop was looted and burnt by the miscreant, for that a compensation was also awarded by the Government. 3. In a nutshell the opposite party No.2 herein is the mother of the petitioners and is a very old lady, who is living with his fourth son, who was made opposite party No.4 before the learned trial court. The opposite party No.4, with whom, the opposite party No.2 is residing fairly admitted before the trial court that whatever amount will be awarded by the learned Court, he will abide by the same. 4. The learned trial court after scrutinizing the materials, came to the conclusion that the opposite party No.2 herein who is the mother of the petitioners is aged about 75 years and she could not maintain herself. From the evidence adduced by the petitioners herein before the learned trial court, it also appears that all the petitioners are economically well off and they can easily support their mother. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued only one point that they are ready to keep the mother with dignity and honor. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the opposite party No.2 herein is the mother of four sons and she is living with one of her son, which does not mean that the other sons will not maintain her on the pretext that the mother is not living with them. The learned trial court after appreciating all the aspect of the matter has awarded maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.8,000/-which is to be shared by all the sons i.e. petitioner nos.1, 2, and 3 and opposite party no.4 before the court below. 6. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that only on the ground that the opposite party No.2 is living with her fourth sons, who is not the petitioner herein, cannot absolve themselves from maintaining their own mother. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties and perusing the entire records, I find that there is no illegality in the order of the learned trial court, whereby and where under the maintenance of Rs.8,000/-(Rs.2,000/-each by sons) is awarded. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties and perusing the entire records, I find that there is no illegality in the order of the learned trial court, whereby and where under the maintenance of Rs.8,000/-(Rs.2,000/-each by sons) is awarded. The petitioner has failed to make out any case and no interference is required by this Court and the instant application being devoid of merit is dismissed.