1. - By this criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.5.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge SC/ST Cases, Bhilwara (for short the revisional court hereinafter) in criminal revision No. 53/2004 whereby the revision petition filled by the petitioner against the order dated 17.7.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara (for short the trial court hereinafter) in criminal case No. 55/1997 was dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order of the trial court dated 17.7.2003 as well as of revisional court dated 27.5.2004. The respondent filed an application under section 125 Cr.PC. claiming maintenance against the petitioner before the trial court stating therein that the marriage between the parties was solemnised in the year 1975 and till September, 1990, the party has been residing together as husband and wife. It was alleged that thereafter the respondent was turned out from the matrimonial house and the petitioner started living with one Pushpa. It was stated that the petitioner having sufficient means neglected and refused to maintain the respondent. The trial court, from the evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner and respondent have been residing together as husband and wife for a considerable long period. It has also concluded that the petitioner having sufficient means neglected and failed to maintain respondent. Before the trial court, the petitioner had made unsuccessful attempt to set up the case that respondent is not legally wedded wife. However. there was overwhelming evidence to the effect that the petitioner and respondent have been living together as husband and wife. The revisional court relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Praya Dixit & Anr., 2000 Cr. L.R. (SC) 41 wherein the Apex Court has held as under :

"In our view, validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceeding u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence u/s. 494 of the IPC. If the claimant in proceedings u/s. 125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the Court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital status can rebute the presumption."

3. I have gone through the pleading made available on record by the learned counsel for the parties. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court cannot be said to be erroneous. On the contrary, it is based on sound and proper appreciation of evidence.

4. The petitioner has already availed the remedy of filing a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge as envisaged under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Under the garb of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. the petitioner seeks to avail a remedy of second revision. The second revision petition is barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. In Dharampal v. Ramshri, 1993 Cr.L.J. 1049 the Hon'ble Supreme court held as under :

"The question that fall for our consideration now is whether the High Court could have utilised the power under Section 482 of the Code and entertain a second revision application at the instance of first respondent. Admittedly. the first respondent had preferred a criminal application being Criminal Revision No. 180/78 to the Sessions Court against the order passed by the Magistrate on 17th October, 1978 withdrawing the attachment. The Sessions Judge had dismissed the said application on 14th May, 1979. Section 397(3) bars a second revision application by the same party, it is now well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of th