Heard Mr. AS Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also hearned Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.5.97 passed by the leaned Sessions Judge. Bongaingaon in Criminal Motion No.5 (1) of 1996 thereby modifying the quantum of maintenance allowance as granted by the trial Court considering the plight of revision petitioner. Thus so far as grant of maintenance] allowances are concerned, the findings of the Courts below are concurrent except the modification of the amount of maintenance payable to the respondent-opposite party. This revision petition is apparentely hit by section 397 (3) CrPC. Although, it was streneously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent wife as for no reason or rhyme refused to live with the petitioner, he cannot be said negligent to maintain his wife. This essential question of fact and the finding recorded therein is based on appreciation of evidence which cannot be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court, more so in face of the face that the finding arrived at are well supported by evidence and cannot be said to be such as no prudent reasonable man in face of the evidence available on record would arrive at. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that power under section 482 CrPC cannot be allowed to be invoked for circumbenting statutory bar extremely provided in section 397 (3) CrPC (See Deepati vs. Akhil Rai, (1995) 5 SCC 751 ; Dharampal vs. Ramshri, AIR 1992 SC 1361, Ranjan Kumar vs. State Karnataka, <1990) SuppI SCC 132). 3. Following the same, this revision petition is dismissed.