B. R. ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition under Section 482,cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated August 16,1990, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (Camp Suratgarh) by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision-petition filed by the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that Smt. Ram Murthi filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh for grant of Maintenance. The learned Judicial Magistrate, by his order dated April 21, 1989, awarded maintenance @ Rs. 200/-per month to Smt. Ram Murthi. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, awarding maintenance @ Rs. 200/- per month to the non-petitioner No. l Smt. Ram Murthi, the husband Bhoop Ram filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (Camp Suratgarh), Who dismissed the same vide his order dated August 16,1990. One of the grounds for rejection of the revision petition was that the revision petition was barred by time. It is against this order that the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned public Prosecutor. As second revision by the same person is not maintainable as per the provisions of Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. , therefore, the petitioner has filed this miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1990 S. C. C. (Cr.) 537, that merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked, the statutory bar could not have been over-come. If that was to be permitted, every revision application facing the bar of Section 397 (3), Cr. P. C. could be labelled as under Section 482,cr. P. C. The Supreme Court was satisfied that it was a case where High Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. In the present case, the petitioner, against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, awarding maintenance to the non-petitioner No. 1 Smt. Ram Murthi, preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, where he was unsuccessful. As per the provisions of Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. , a second revision does not lie at the instance of the same person. Sub-section (3) of Section 397,cr. P. C: is mandatory. The bar of second revision under Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. cannot be circumvented by styling the application as a miscellaneous application. The petitioner has filed this miscellaneous application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. just to circumvent the bar under Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. , which cannot be allowed. Even otherwise on merits also, the petitioner has got no case. The petitioner had a notice of the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P. C. which were decided against him on April 21, 1989, but he filed the revision petition on July 9, 1990. The learned Additional Sessions judge, after taking into consideration the full facts of the case, dismissed the revision petition as being barred by time. The order passed by the learned Lower Court is perfectly just and proper and there is no illegality in that order. Consequently, this miscellaneous petition is, therefore, dismissed. . ;