JUDGMENT : S.G. Pandit, J. - The petitioner/husband is before this Court challenging the judgment dated 16.11.2017, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 675/2016, on the file of the Pri. Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura, by which maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month each to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is granted by allowing petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 2. The petitioner is husband. Respondent No. 1 is wife. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are children of the petitioner and respondent No. 1. 3. The parties to this petition would be referred to as their ranks stand before the trial Court. 4. The petitioner filed petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking maintenance from respondent. It is stated that the marriage of petitioner No. 1 and respondent was solemnized on 13.12.1999 at Basavan Bagewadi. From the wedlock, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are born and they are aged about 11 years and 17 years respectively as on the date of filing the petition. It is stated by the petitioners that the respondent is retired Army personnel who is re-employed in Canara Bank as Security Guard. It is further stated that the respondent is getting Rs. 20,000/- per month as pension for his service in Army and he is getting Rs. 15,000/-per month from his job of Security Guard from Canara Bank apart from agricultural income. It is stated that it is very difficult for petitioner No. 1 to maintain herself and her children, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and also to look after the educational expenses of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. 5. The respondent/husband has not disputed the relationship of the petitioners but denied the allegations made in the petition with regard to his income before the trial Court. 6. Petitioner No. 1 examined herself as PW. 1 and got marked 11 documents as Exs. P. 1 to P. 11 and respondent himself examined as RW.1 and produced Exs.R.1 and R.2. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent (petitioner herein) and the learned counsel for the petitioners (respondents herein). Perused the petition papers. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent (petitioner herein) submits that the maintenance granted by the trial Court is on the higher side as the respondent/husband is drawing only Rs. 13,049/- as salary. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent (petitioner herein) and the learned counsel for the petitioners (respondents herein). Perused the petition papers. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent (petitioner herein) submits that the maintenance granted by the trial Court is on the higher side as the respondent/husband is drawing only Rs. 13,049/- as salary. Further the learned counsel for the respondent submits that out of the salary, it is very difficult for him to maintain himself and to give Rs. 9,000/- per month towards maintenance to the petitioners. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners (respondents herein) submits that since 2013, petitioners are residing separately as the respondent ill-treated petitioner No. 1. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 1 has no independent income of her own and she has to maintain herself and two children. Since the respondent is a pensioner from military service who is working as Security Guard at Canara Bank is in a position to maintain petitioner No. 1 and his children and it would not be difficult for him to pay Rs. 9,000/- per month towards maintenance granted by the trial Court. 10. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioners and respondent. The respondent has not denied the fact that he is a retired Army personnel and getting pension. It is on record that he is working as Security Guard after retirement at Canara; Bank and drawing salary. The petitioners have also produced RTC extracts to show that the respondent possess landed property to indicate that he has also agricultural income. As on the date of filing the petition, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, children were of the age 11 years and 17 years respectively and now they must be studying either in 10th or PUC which requires substantial amount for their education. The trial Court while granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month each to petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 has recorded that the respondent is an Ex-service man and is working at Canara Bank as Security Guard. Looking into the status of the parties, the Tribunal has rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to each of the petitioners, which in my view is reasonable. 3,000/- per month each to petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 has recorded that the respondent is an Ex-service man and is working at Canara Bank as Security Guard. Looking into the status of the parties, the Tribunal has rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to each of the petitioners, which in my view is reasonable. Apart from the source of income of the respondent and capacity of the respondent, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to maintain the petitioners. It is also the duty of the respondent to look after the educational needs of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. From the petition averments and on going through the order passed by the trial Court, I am satisfied that the respondent has sufficient income to maintain the petitioners. The maintenance ordered by the trial Court is not excessive. The same is reasonable. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. 11. It is seen that a sum of Rs. 55,000/- is in deposit before this Court, which is kept in fixed deposit in the State Bank of India. The same shall be transferred to the trial Court to enable petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, wife and children to withdraw the same.