Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—Heard learned counsel for revisionist Sri Ram Babu Sharma, Sri D.S. Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2 and learned A.G.A. on behalf of State. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged.

2. This criminal revision stems from the judgment and order dated 9.9.2014 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No. 537 of 2013 (Smt. Madhulika Sharma v. Chetan Ananad Parashar @ Rahul) whereby the maintenance request of respondent No. 2, Ms. Madhulika Sharma (wife) was denied but the minor son of revisionist and respondent No. 2 was awarded maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of institution of application.

3. The record discloses that marriage of revisionist was solemnized with respondent No. 2 on 4.11.2013 in accordance with Hindu rites wherein substantial amount of dowry was given. As usual the revisionist and his family members were not happy with the given dowry. The revisionist and his parents started coercing respondent No. 2 to extract Rs. 5 lacs from her family but she was unable to fulfill their demand. This perceived insufficiency of dowry and non fulfillment of further dowry demand resulted in the ridicule, harassment and torture of respondent-wife. Meanwhile she gave birth to a son on 6.9.2014 but things did not improve. On the contrary torture and cruelty increased, therefore she informed her father and sister on 8.5.2006 who in turned reported the matter to the Police on 9.5.2006 at Ghaziabad (U.P.) and they rescued her from the clutches of in-laws at Bangalore. She (wife) was found in miserable condition and state of shock. Since then she is living with her parents. It is stated that the revisionist and his family members did not provide any financial support either to the respondent No. 2 or their minor son despite the fact that revisionist was drawing a handsome salary from a American Multinational Corporation.

4. The revisionist denied all allegations and submitted that respondent No. 2 (wife) treated him disCourteously and that; she is a fashionable woman who was not willing to do household chores. The revisionist further stated that respondent No. 2 is a graduate and is teaching in a school earning Rs. 5000/- per month. She also earns additional amounts from tuition, sewing and paintings etc.

5. After considering all evidence on record, trial Court concluded that respondent No. 2 was earning almost Rs. 19,117/- per month while the earnings of revisionist in the financial year 2010 was almost to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs. The trial Court also concluded that respondent No. 2 is not entitled of any maintenance because of her earnings while her son master Aryan is entitled of maintenance from his father. The trial Court awarded Rs. 15,000/- as maintenance to their minor son.

6. Submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite party No. 2 is residing away from her matrimonial house on her free will with her parents, without any rhyme and reason. It is further submitted that revisionist wants to keep opposite party No. 2 but she does not want to live with her husband. It was argued that the revisionist is not in a position to give such amount of maintenance to minor son, master Aryan. The Court below has wrongly assessed the income of the revisionist while passing the impugned order. It was further argued that the trial Court has allowed maintenance allowance to Master Aryan, minor son from the date of institution of application without assigning any specific reason.

7. On the other hand, the learned AGA and counsel for respondent-wife have supported the impugned order and contended that the impugned order is just and legal and there is no illegality or infirmity and the present criminal revision is bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order and also other material on record. It is settled position of law that High Court will exercis