A second revision against the order of the Sessions Judge is not maintainable and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the courts.

( 1 ) THIS is an application filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the orders in Crl. Revision Case No. 18/93 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, confirming the order of the Munsiff magistrate, Vayalpad in M. C. No. 3/91.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as follows: the petitioner herein is the husband of the 1st respondent herein. She filed a petition under Section 125 (1) Cr. P. C. in m. C. No. 3/91 for granting maintenance alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein, that she was subjected to cruelty, that she has been driven out of the house and that he married another lady and living with her. The petitioner resisted that application. He denied the factum of marriage with the 1st respondent. He contended that the 1 st respondent filed the said petition at the instance of one Srihari, who is the husband of his sister, and against whom, his sister initiated maintenance proceedings, that he married one tulasamma and he is living with her. He also pleaded that he has no capacity to pay the maintenance. He further pleaded that the 1 st respondent is the concubine of his paternal uncle and that she is earning Rs. 25/- per day. To substantiate their respective contentions, on behalf of the wife, PWs. 1 to 5 were examined and exs. P-1 and P-2 were marked. On behalf of the husband, RWs. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs. R-1 and R-2 were marked. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned magistrate held that the 1st respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner and that she is entitled for maintenance and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of rs. 300/- per month towards her maintenance from the date of his order, dated 4-03-1993. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner-husband preferred a revision to thecourt of Districtand Sessions judge, Chittoor in Cr. R. C. No. 18/93. The learned District and Sessions Judge, chittoor by his order, dated 30-11 -1994 confirmed the order of the learned magistrate and dismissed the revision case. Aggrieved by that order, the husband petitioner has come up with this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the the order of the Dist. and Sessions judge, confirming the order of the magistrate granting maintenance to the 1 st respondent herein.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that by virtue of Section 399 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, no second revision lies to the High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge passed in a revision case and that the order of the learned Sessions Judge has become final. The learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is also not maintainable as the order of the Sessions judge in revision case has become final. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme court in Dharmpal and Others v. Smt. Ramsree and Others. (1) AIR 1993 SC 1361 and Deepti Alias Arathi Rai v. Akil rai and Others (2) 1995 (5) SCC 751. In dharmpal and Others v. Smt. Ramsree and Others (referred above), Their Lordships of supreme Court in para No. 4 have laid down the law thus:"the question that falls for our consideration now is whether the High court could have utilised the power under section 482 of the Code and entertain the second revisional application at the instance of the 1st respondent. Admittedly, the 1st respondent has preferred a criminal application being criminal revision case No. 7180/78 to the Sessions Court against the order passed by a Magistrate on 17th October, 1975 withdrawing the attachment. The Sessions Judge had dismissed the said case on 14-May, 1979. Section 399 (3) bars the second revision application by the same party. It is now well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are barred by the Court. Hence, the High court has clearly erred in entertaining the second revision atthe instance ofthe 1st respondent. On this short gr