B.J.SHETHNA, J. - (1.) TWO contentions have been raised in this petition by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nandwana for the petitioner husband. 1. That both the courts below have committed error in not accepting the evidence of the husband about the payment of amount towards mehr. 2. The amount of Rs. 5,000/ - awarded to the wife for maintenance was very excessive.
(2.) BOTH these contentions have no merits, hence, they are required to be rejected. Whether the Mehr amount was paid to the wife is a question of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court in a matter filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. In fact, there is a bar of Second revision petition under Section 399(2) Cr. P.C., therefore, to circumvent the bar, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Even assuming for the sake of argument that this petition is maintainable, then also this Court will not exercise it's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. where there is a concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts below against the petitioner.
(3.) AT this stage, a request was made to convert this petition as a writ petition. Such prayer cannot be granted at a belated stage. Hence, rejected.;