JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition is directed against the order dated 4.8.98 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh whereby he upheld the order of maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month passed by the Judicial Magistrate, in favour of the respondent No. 2. 2. Mr. Rastogi contends that the finding of the Magistrate is perverse as he has omitted to consider the evidence of the petitioner that the respondent has deserted the petitioner without just cause. He also submits that the respondent has got her own income as the land left by her father has been mutated in her name. In support of this contention he refers to a photo copy of the entry of 'Jamabandi'. 3. I have gone through the judgments of the two courts. At the out set, it may be stated that this petition is a second revision in the garb of misc. petition whereas the second revision is barred under section 397(3) Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in the case of Dharampal v. Ramshri 1993 Cr.L.J. 1049 and Ganesh Narayan v. State 1995) 4 JT (SC) 4 and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Neeraj Kumar v. State 1996(2) WLC (Raj.) 215 have held that the miscellaneous petition cannot be entertained as it would circumvent the provisions of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. On this count alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Even on merits there is no case in favour of the petitioner. The respondent in her application for maintenance averred that she was ill-treated by her husband (petitioner), she was not given soap, not even food and she had to live on begging. She further stated that because of the neglect by her husband she filed a case against him under section 125 Cr.P.C. in 1984, in which there was compromise on 30.1.91 and therefore she started living with her husband but he again started causing cruelty to her and turned her out of the house. It was further the case of the respondent that she had to go to her mother's house on the illness of her father and after some time her father expired but the petitioner did not even pay condolence visit. According to her, the petitioner never went to take her to his house nor, any one was sent for taking her there. According to her, the petitioner never went to take her to his house nor, any one was sent for taking her there. The reply of the petitioner was that he maintained his wife and the allegations that she was neglected are false. 5. The learned Magistrate after analysing the evidence of both the parties came to the conclusion that the respondent was neglected and she was ill-treated by the petitioner. He further held that the land left by the father of the respondent is in possession of different persons who claims to be the adopted son of Jagannath father of the respondent. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also considered the evidence and has concurred with the findings recorded by the Magistrate. This Court in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction cannot reappraise the evidence and come to a finding different than the one recorded by the courts below. It is not pointed out there is any illegality in the order or the proceedings as to lead miscarriage of justice. 6. That being so, the petition is dismissed in limine.Petition Dismissed In Limine Holding It As, Circumventing Bar Of Second Revision Under section 397(3) Cr.P.C.. *******