JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated September 5, 1990, passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area). Bharatpur, by which the learned Special Judge allowed the revision petition filed by Smt. Bhagwan Devi and, Santosh Kumar in part & awarded the interim maintenance amounting to Rs. 300/- per month to Mst. Bhagwan Devi and Rs. 150/- per month to Santosh Kumar. He, however, rejected the revision filed by Shyam Singh. 2. Smt. Bhagwan Devi filed an application under Section 125 Cr P.C. for the grant of the maintenance to herself as well as to her son Santosh Kumar in the Court of the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bharatpur. This application was opposed by Shyam Singh. The learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, by his judgment dated April 20, 1984, awarded the maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month to Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Rs. 100/- per month to Santosh Kumar. Dissatisfied with the order dated April 20, 1984, awarding the maintenance to Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Santosh Kumar, Shyam Singh filed a revision petition before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. Bhagwan Devi and Santosh Kumar, also, filed a revision petition against the order of the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate on the ground of insufficiency of the amount of the maintenance. Both the revision petitions were decided by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Bharatpur. The learned Special Judge allowed the revision petition filed on behalf of Smt. Bhagwan Devi and another, but rejected the revision petition filed on behalf of Shyam Singh by his judgment dated September 5, 1990. It is against this judgment that the present miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the judgment passed by the Court below. 4. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner as the second revision petition under Section 397 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. According to Sub-Section (3) of Section 397, no further application under Section 397 Cr.P.C. can be entertained by the Court if an application under Section 397 Cr.P.C. made by the same person, has already been rejected. 5. Even on merit, I do not find any case in favour of the petitioner. In these hard days, the amount of Rs. According to Sub-Section (3) of Section 397, no further application under Section 397 Cr.P.C. can be entertained by the Court if an application under Section 397 Cr.P.C. made by the same person, has already been rejected. 5. Even on merit, I do not find any case in favour of the petitioner. In these hard days, the amount of Rs. 450/- per month, awarded to two persons, is rather on the lower side and it is not on the higher side. Looking to the prices of the essential commodities, it is difficult for a person to maintain two persons even in this amount and, therefore, there is no question of reducing the amount. The petitioner has already contracted the second marriage and the second wife is living with him. It is the matrimonial right of a wife to get maintenance allowance from her husband and if the Court has awarded the maintenance, no question of interference is involved. 6. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the revision petition & the same is hereby dismissed. *******