KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to assail the order dated 19.2.2018, passed by Family Court, Alwar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1/191/2016 titled Smt. Sapna & Anr. v. Manoj Kumar, whereby the trial court in an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 by the aggrieved wife awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of respondent wife and also Rs. 2,000/- per month as interim maintenance in favour of minor son of the petitioner.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner Manoj Kumar and respondent Smt. Sapna on 19.11.2012 were married as per Hindu customs and rites at Alwar. At the time of marriage, father of respondent Smt. Sapna had given dowry beyond his capacity. On 25.8.2014, from the loins of petitioner and womb of respondent Sapna, a son was born, who was later named as Aarvi Singh. Due to matrimonial dispute and cruelty caused and because of demand of Car by the accused, respondent Smt. Sapna as per averments made in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 was compelled to leave the house of the petitioner. She returned to her parental house along with her son in November, 2014. On 25.7.2016, she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 praying for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 for herself and son. The petitioner filed reply to the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 stating that the respondent wife has obtained qualification of M.A., B.Ed. and is working as Teacher in Lords International School, Alwar and is earning Rs. 10,000/-.

3. The trial court vide impugned order, after examining the contentions raised, awarded interim maintenance and held that no evidence has been led that the respondent aggrieved wife is working lady. The trial court also came to conclusion that even non-applicant has failed to prove that the petitioner is working and earning salary Rs. 15,000/- per month in a Mall. Thus, the trial court concluded as under:-

"This court is of considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is allegations of dowry demand and other mental torture in such a situation it cannot be said that the applicant are living separately without any valid reason. (Emphasis supplied) As such, without going into merit and demerit of the case and the allegations made by the parties against each other, I find it just and proper to pass an order of interim maintenance in favour of applicants. Treating the minimum wage obtained by the non-applicant as Rs. 9,000 per month, a sum of Rs. 2,000 to be given to the wife and Rs. 2,000 to be given to the minor child per month as interim maintenance from the date of application till the final disposal of the main application."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned order passed by the trial court has primarily raised plea that the respondent wife is not entitled to grant of maintenance, as she has withdrawn herself from the company of petitioner without any sufficient cause. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., 1973 to urge that the respondent wife without any sufficient reason has refused to live with the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon Section 125(5) Cr.P.C., 1973 to contend that there is order in favour of the petitioner from the court of law from which it can be inferred that wife has refused to live with her husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to petition Annexure-3 filed by him under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that upon filing petition Annexure-3, the court of Principal District Judge, Hissar, had passed decree under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act by holding that the respondent wife has withdrawn from the company of the petitioner without any just reaso