Ramesh Sinha, J.— Heard Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Zafeer Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Criminal Case No. 53/11/07, Jyoti Pant and another Vs. Manoj Kumar Sharma under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad by which the claim of maintenance of revisionist no.1 has been rejected by the court below and a maintenance of Rs. 600/- per month has been awarded to revisionist no.2, who is the minor son of opposite party no.2 from the date of the order till he attain the age of majority. In the present revision the revisionists have prayed that the application for maintenance as it relates to revisionist no.1, be allowed and further enhanced the maintenance allowance so far as it relates to revisionist no.2. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Family court has arbitrarily rejected the claim of maintenance of the revisionist no.1, who is the wife of opposite party no.2, on the ground that she is an educated lady and she is employed in Army Public School in Delhi where she has worked from 13th September, 2007 to 21st March, 2008 as a teacher on term basis and got a salary of Rs. 12, 132/- and she has sufficient means to maintain herself. Besides, this the revisionist no.1 has also applied for the post of a teacher by filing an application form which has been filed as Paper No. 37 Ka/7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further contended that the revisionist no.1 was employed as a teacher in an army school on term basis upto 21st March, 2008 but thereafter till date she is not working anywhere, hence she is not in a position to maintain herself or her child. The said facts has been stated in paragraph-13 of the instant revision. It is further contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that the opposite party no.2 is employed in Sports Authority of India and he is earning Rs. 19,300/- per month in this respect he has also filed Paper No. 48 Ga to indicate that the husband-opposite party no.2 is drawing a salary of Rs. It is further contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that the opposite party no.2 is employed in Sports Authority of India and he is earning Rs. 19,300/- per month in this respect he has also filed Paper No. 48 Ga to indicate that the husband-opposite party no.2 is drawing a salary of Rs. 19,873/- as on 28.4.2009 which has been filed a annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant revision. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand has contended that the revisionist no.1 is a well educated lady and is working as a teacher having a qualification of M.A. B.Ed. and she has sufficient means to maintain herself as well as her minor child. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 there is no specific denial of the fact that the revisionist no.1 is not employed after the year 2008 till today. In paragraph-14 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the revisionist no.1 is working as a teacher and from time to time she changes her teaching institution and earned sufficient money to maintain herself and her son. 6. Having considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and from a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the husband-opposite party no.2 is employed in Sport Authority of India and he has admitted before the Judge, Family Court in his evidence that he is earning Rs. 19,300/- per month. Moreover, from the evidence adduced before the Court by the opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.2 failed to show to the Court that the revisionist no.1 had sufficient means to maintain herself and her son after the year 2008 till passing of the impugned order dated 18.12.2009 and then too the trial court rejected the application for maintenance filed by the revisionists without there being any evidence regarding sufficient means to maintain herself and her son. 7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the wife revisionist no.1 is entitled for maintenance of Rs. 7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the wife revisionist no.1 is entitled for maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of the order of Family Court i.e. 18.12.2009 till she remains unemployed and as soon as she gets a job from which she can maintain herself, the maintenance granted to her shall automatically come to an end and the said fact may be brought to the knowledge of Family Court by opposite party no.2, husband by making a proper application before the concerned Family Court which will be free to pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. Looking to the needs of the wife and circumstances of the case to maintain her minor son, it is desirable that Rs. 600/- granted by the court below to the revisionist no.2 be enhanced to Rs. 2,500 till he attain the age of majority. 8. The order of the Court below with respect to rejection of the claim of maintenance to the wife revisionist no.1 is hereby set aside. With the aforesaid observations, the revision is partly allowed. _