JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against the revisional order of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated 20.5.1987 whereby he has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 2. Non-petitioner Mst. Naraini is the wife of petitioner Bansidas. She has been granted certain maintenance. An application was filed by wife-non-petitioner for recovery of the maintenance amount. A notice was issued to the husband-petitioner to show-cause as to why the amount of maintenance due against him may not be recovered. The husband-petitioner filed a revision against the order of the learned Add]. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate (North), Udaipur dated 21.4.1982 and that revision petition was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur on 16.12.1983 and it was ordered that the case be re-heard and decided. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties, by his order dated 6.3.1984, ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1750/- for the period of 1.4.1979 to 28.2.1982 as maintenance to the wife-non-petitioner. Thereafter on 12.3.1986, the husband-petitioner again filed an application pleading, inter-alia, that he has compromised the matter with his wife and they are living together since 5.7.1985 and he was actually making entire expenditure of the household . He has even paid some money i.e. Rs. 1500/- to the wife-non -petitioner for preparation of ornaments. He has further averred that he paid her a sum of Rs. 756/- for purchase of utensils and Rs. 970/- for purchase of clothes and, therefore, her application for maintenance be dismissed. This application was heard on 14.5.1986 and it was dismissed. No revision was filed against that order and, therefore the order dated 14.5.1986 has become final. 3. Later, it is alleged that one more application was filed on 5.7.1986 making the same allegations and that application has also been dismissed. Hence this revision. The learned Sessions Judge has upheld the order of the learned trial Court on the ground that when earlier application was filed and it was dismissed on 14.5.1986 and against that order, no revision has been filed and as a result of that, that order has become final and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate these points again on account of the bar created by the principles of res judicata. 4. 4. I have heard Mr B.N. Kalla, the learned counsel appearing for the husband-petitioner and Shri N.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the wife-non-petitioner. I have carefully gone through the record of the case.Mr. Kalla has submitted that when a plea is raised evidence should have been taken about it. When the same plea has been raised earlier and it has been dismissed and no revision has been filed against that order, then that order has become final between the parties and the same plea cannot be re-agitated in the same proceedings subsequently as it is barred by res-judicata and, therefore, to this extent, there is no illegality in the order of the learned lower court. 5. It was further contended that the arrears for over a period of one year cannot be recovered. Actually, this application was filed much earlier and it was pending because of certain applications and revisions being filed by the petitioner and so, in the meanwhile nothing was paid to the wife-non-petitioner. Moreover, this plea was available to the petitioner when the first application for maintenance was filed. A revision was also filed against the order of recovery and in that revision, no such plea was raised that arrears for over a period of one year cannot be recovered. Even in the latter application also no such plea was raised. Thus, the petitioner is estopped from raising that plea at this stage because he has failed to file any revision against the order dated 14.5.1986, which has become final between the parties. In Bhagatram v. State of Rajasthan, ( AIR 1972 SC 1502 ) , it has been observed by their lord- ships of the Supreme Court as under : "The order of Division Bench unless set aside in appeal to the Supreme Court, was binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties on the principle of res judicata which is also applicable to criminal proceedings." It was also contended that no warrant of arrest can be issued straight way without issuing a notice. In this respect, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Sher Mohd. v. Mst. Roshan, (1987 WLNOC 158) wherein it has been observed that a notice before the issuance of a warrant under Section 125(3) Criminal Procedure Code is essential it does not make any difference whether the order under Section 125(1) Cri. In this respect, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Sher Mohd. v. Mst. Roshan, (1987 WLNOC 158) wherein it has been observed that a notice before the issuance of a warrant under Section 125(3) Criminal Procedure Code is essential it does not make any difference whether the order under Section 125(1) Cri. P.C. had been passed after hearing both the parties or was passed ex-parte. In this case, the order sheet of the learned trial Court dated 16.7.1986 clearly depicts that a notice was issued and a reply was filed. After his application was dismissed, the petitioner sought time for payment and that was agreed to by the counsel for the parties and, therefore, it is clear that straightway warrant of arrest has not been issued. Even after that, a number of applications have been filed and decided which clearly shows that notice was issued to the husband-petitioner and, thereafter, the warrant of arrest has been issued. In this view of the matter, I find no illegality in the order under challenge in this Misc. petition. 6. In the result, this petition has no force and it is hereby dismissed on merits.Petition dismissed. *******