JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 28-1-95 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and maintained the order dated 3-10-94 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, by which the learned Magistrate allowed the application under section 125 Cr. P.C. filed by Smt. Geeta Bai and awarded a sum of Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance to her. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are contrary to the law and facts involved in this case and the learned Courts below have not taken into consideration the evidence produced by the parties and wrongly awarded the maintenance to Smt. Geeta Bai. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Courts below. Both the Courts below have considered the evidence properly and rightly awarded the maintenance in favour of the wife. The orders passed by the Courts below do not require any interference. 5. Even otherwise, the present miscellaneous petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 397 Criminal Procedure Code. Section 397 (3) Criminal Procedure Code. puts a statutory bar on filing of the second revision by the same person. The petitioner has, in order to overcome this difficulty, changed the nomenclature of the petition and has termed it as a miscellaneous petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code Merely by changing the nomenclature, the statutory bar of section 397(3) Criminal Procedure Code cannot be overcome. 6. In the result, I do not find any merit in this miscellaneous petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******