A second revision petition is barred under Section 397(3), Cr.P.C., and a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., cannot be used to challenge concurrent findings of fact by lower courts if such findings are reasonable and within their jurisdiction.

Amaresh Kumar Singh, J.-Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the file of the case.

2. Thispetition is directed against the order dated 9th December, 96 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal revision No. 21/96, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition and maintained the order dated 14th February, 95 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara in criminal misc. case No. 112/93, whereby he granted maintenance allowance to Smt. Manju.

3. It appears that Smt. Manju, non-petitioner in this case, filed a petition Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magis-trate, Nathdwara. In the petition, she has stated that she was married to Tulsi Ram (petitioner in the case) and that after her marriage she gave birth to one boy, who is alive and that she was treated cruelly, therefore, it was not possible for her to live with her husband and that she had no means of subsistence and that she was in need of maintenance allowance. The application filed by Smt. Manju was contested by the petitioner Tulsi Ram.

4. Both the parties produced their evidence. The application was contested on the ground that the marriage between Smt. Manju and Tulsi Ram did not take place and that no son was born to Smt. Manju from Tulsi Ram and that in fact Tulsi Ram had married to Geeta and therefore, the application Under Section 127, Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. After taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that it was proved that the marriage of Smt. Manju with Tulsi Ram had taken place in accordance with the customs prevailing in the Hindus and that after their marriage she had delivered a boy and that she was entitled to maintenance. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, allowed the application filed by Smt. Manju and granted her maintenance allowance @ Rs. 300/-per month for Smt. Manju and Rs. 200/-per month for her son.’

5. The petitioner Tulsi Ram filed the revision petition No. 2 1/96 Tulsi Ram vs. Smt. Manju in the Court of Additional District Judge, Rajsamand. After hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 9th December, 96 dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Both the lower Courts have given a concurrent finding to the effect that the marriage of Smt. Manju and Tulsi Ram had been celebrated in accordance with the Hindu customs and that a son was born to Smt. Manju. Both the lower Courts have come to the conclusion that Smt. Manju is entitled to grant maintenance allowance for herself as well as for his son and that she has no means of subsistence:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the Courts have committed an error in arriving: at the conclusion that Smt Manju is the legally married wife of the petitioner and therefore, the order passed by the lower Courts amount to abuse of the process of the Court and they are not sustainable.

7. Thelearned counsel for the non-petitioner has opposed this petition and submitted that this petition purporting to be a petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, because this petition is in fact the second revision petition regarding the same matter and therefore, this petition is barred by Sub-section (3) of Section 397, Cr.P.C.

8. It is alsosubmitted by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that both the Courts have given a concurrent finding after proper appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties and that finding cannot be disturbed in this petition. According to him there was sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that Smt. Manju was the legally married wife of the petitioner. In fact, the petitio