Honble SHETHNA, J. – Two contentions have been raised in this petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nandwana for the petitioner husband. 1. That both the courts below have committed error in not accepting the evidence of the husband about the payment of amount towards mehr. 2. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded to the wife for maintenance was very excessive. (2) Both these contentions have no merits, hence, they are required to be rejected. (3) Whether the mehr amount was paid to the wife is a question of fact which cannot be gone into by this court in a matter filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In fact, there is a bar of Second Revision petition under Sec. 399 (2) Cr.P.C., therefore, to circumvent the bar, the petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. Even assuming for the sake of argument that this petition is maintainable, then also this court will not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. where there is a concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts below against the petitioner. (4) At this stage, a request was made to convert this petition as a writ petition. Such prayer cannot be granted at a belated stage. Hence, rejected. (5) The second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding grant of life time maintenance amount of Rs. 500/- to the respondent wife. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had to maintain his widow mother, his second wife and he has also to pay Rs.5,000/- to his daughter, therefore, the lumpsum amount of Rs.5,000/- is too excessive, particularly when the petitioner is a driver. The very fact that after giving divorce to his wife, the petitioner has contacted second marriage shows that he is well to do, Rs. 5,000/- is not an excessive amount at all. In fact the Honble Supreme Court in a case reported in 1997 Cr.L. Journal p.3140 (1) held that even a blind husband or disabled employee cannot refuse to maintain his wife or to grant maintenance to her. (6) Considering the reasons assigned by the courts below, it cannot be said that the courts below have committed any error which calls for any interference by this court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This petition is accordingly, rejected.