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 v. 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 v. 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., 1973 claiming maintenance for herself and also for her three minor children.;