Sangeeta Chandra, J.

1. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.04.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Chitrakoot in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2008 (Bal Mukund Tiwari vs. Smt. Heeramani Tiwari and others), whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot has dismissed the criminal appeal of Bal Mukund Tiwari, the revisionist and also the order dated 18.09.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot in Case No. 95/XII/08 (Heeramani and others vs. Tulsa and others).

2. The facts relevant for deciding the controversy, in brief, are stated herein-below:

3. The revisionist Bal Mukund Tiwari was married to Smt. Heeramani Tiwari in 1990 and out of their wedlock, one daughter and two sons were born. The revisionist was working as a part time Tube-well operator initially and was later promoted on the post of Pump Operator in the Irrigation Department. He neglected his wife. Smt. Heeramani Tiwari, who therefore filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and also for her three minor children.

4. It was contended by Smt. Heeramani Tiwari in the said application that she was subjected to both physical and mental abuse as a result of which, she had also lodged an FIR against the revisionist in the year 2000 at the police station concerned. The revisionist had got an ex-parte divorce decree passed against his wife and had married some other lady. The revisionist was a man of sufficient means. He not only had a job of Pump Operator in the Irrigation Department, but also was co-tenure holder in joint family property of about 55-60 bighas of which 8-9 bighas fell in the share of the revisionist.

5. The revisionist had also filed objections in the said application under section 125 Cr.P.C. and in his statement before the court concerned, he had admitted that since the year 2005, the revisionist had not given a single penny to his wife and children for their upkeep. He admitted that he had taken an ex-parte divorce decree against his wife on 05.09.2006 and at the time of taking such divorce he had also not given any monetary help to his wife Smt. Heeramani Tiwari.

6. The Judicial Magistrate, Chitrkoot after looking into the merits of the case had passed an order directing the revisionist to give Rs. 700/- to each of the applicants i.e. wife Smt. Heeramani Tiwari and daughter Roshni and Sushil and Manish, the two sons of the revisionist on 14.07.2008.

7. It had been contended by Smt. Heeramani in her application moved under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein-after referred to as the 'Domestic Violence Act, 2005') that the revisionist did not challenge the order passed on the application under section 125 Cr.P.C., but also did not make any effort to comply with the same, nor did he give a single penny to his wife and children for their maintenance. Smt. Heeramani Tiwari prayed for relief with regard to residence or in the alternative, for giving of Rs.1500/- as rent along with Rs.3000/- per month for food, clothes, medicines and other basic human amenities, and also prayed for Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lac) for marriage of daughter Roshni and Rs. 2,000/- as tuition fees for the two minor sons, with a further prayer for maintaining status quo with regard to the house, in which the applicants were residing, and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for physical, verbal, emotional and economic abuse that the applicant had undergone along with her children.

8. This application was filed by the applicant-opposite party No. 2, Smt. Heeramani Tiwari against her husband Bal Mukund Tiwari, the revisionist and against her two brothers-in-law and her mother-in-law.

9. The Chief Judicial Magistrate while allowing the said application had taken into account the fact that the revisionist owned a big house in Sitapur, which although is in the name of the aggrieved applicant, but was being enjoye