JUDGMENT A.S. Naidu, J. — Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order/judgment dated 21.9.2001 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in Crl. Revision No.4/5 of 2001 confirming the order dated 21.10.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-J.M.F.C. Jharsuguda in Crl. Misc. Case No.60 of 1998. The petitioner has also prayed to quash further proceedings in Execution Case No.63 of 2001 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner-husband married Opp. Party No. l on 4.5.1998 in consonance with Hindu customs. They led a blissful married life and out of the wed-lock, Opp. Party No.2 was born on 11.6.1989. It is alleged that the wife-Opp. party No. 1 was sent to her paternal house on her confinement as per the caste customs on 10.5.1989. But-then, after delivery of a male child (O.P. No.2) in her father’s house, the husband neither came to see his new born son nor his wife. It is further alleged that in spite of several requests, the petitioner-husband did not bother to take care of his wife and the child (Opp. Parties). The Opp. Party-wife was constrained to reside with her parents along with her new born son and faced tremendous difficulties. On query, the wife also came to know that taking advantage of her absence, her husband married one Pravasin Naik through whom he had begotten three children and all of them were staying together. According to the wife, as her husband did not maintain her and the son, she was constrained to initiate a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- each, in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cum-J.M.F.C., Jharsuguda. The said petition was registered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 60 of 1998. 3. The husband appeared in the said case and filed a counter taking a positive plea that the wife wilfully deserted him for which she was not entitled to any maintenance. He also took the stand that as the wife did not return to her in-laws’ house after giving birth to Opp. Party No.2, the husband filed a suit praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The said suit was registered as T.S. No.41 of 1991 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) J. Sambalpur and was decreed ex parte on 17.12.1991. Party No.2, the husband filed a suit praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The said suit was registered as T.S. No.41 of 1991 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) J. Sambalpur and was decreed ex parte on 17.12.1991. In spite of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the wife did not return back to her husband’s house and the said act clearly revealed that she had wilfully deserted her husband, that too, without any sufficient reason and as such, she was not entitled to any maintenance and the petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. ought to be dismissed in limine. 4. In the trial Court, the wife examined two witnesses to establish her case of wilful negligence. At the other hand, the husband examined two wit-nesses and exhibited seven documents. 5. The trial Court after discussing the evidence threadbare arrived at the conclusion that the husband had kept one Pravasini as his concubine and through her he had begotten children and they were living under same roof. On the basis of such finding, the trial Court held that in spite of ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights T.S. No. 41 of 1991, the wife has entitled to maintenance. Accordingly, the trial Court directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to each of the present Opp. Parties from the date of filing the petition. 6. The said order was challenged by the husband in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 4/5 of 2001. The revisional Court also after going through the materials available, confirmed the order of maintenance passed by the trial Court and dismissed the Criminal Revision on merit by a well-discussed judgment. The orders passed by the Courts below are sought to be challenged in the garb of invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court though in consonance with a second revision is not maintainable. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in consonance with the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Jasholal Agrawala @ Jain v. Smt. Puspabati Agrawala1, the Courts now ought to have dismissed the petition filed by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in limine. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in consonance with the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Jasholal Agrawala @ Jain v. Smt. Puspabati Agrawala1, the Courts now ought to have dismissed the petition filed by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in limine. It is urged that as per the decision supra, the finding of the Court in a matrimonial proceeding is binding on the Criminal Court and in view of the finding arrived at in T.S. No. 41 of 1991 that the wife had wilfully deserted the husband and an ex parte decree having been passed in the said suit directing restitution of conjugal rights, the Courts below should have held that the wife was not entitled to any maintenance. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the fact that the wife wilfully and voluntarily deserted the husband is further fortified from the fact that though she filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and for injuncting the husband from getting married for the second time, in course of hearing she chose not to press the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights and confined the suit only to the prayer for injuncting the husband from getting married for the second time. 8. Learned counsel for the Opp. parties, at the other hand, forcefully submitted that the husband had illicit relationship with one Pravasini Naik and taking advantage of the absence of the wife, the husband brought said Pravasini to his house. It is also alleged that through Pravasini, the husband has begotten three children and all of them are residing in the joint family house. In view of the aforesaid facts, the question of wilful desertion by wife loses it importance. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Opp. Parties that in view of the bar created under the Cr.P.C., the present criminal misc. case which is, in fact, a second revision filed by the hus-band who has lost the revision filed before the Addl. Sessions Judge, invoking inherent jurisdiction, is not maintainable, and only on that ground this criminal misc. case is liable to be dismissed. 9. Parties that in view of the bar created under the Cr.P.C., the present criminal misc. case which is, in fact, a second revision filed by the hus-band who has lost the revision filed before the Addl. Sessions Judge, invoking inherent jurisdiction, is not maintainable, and only on that ground this criminal misc. case is liable to be dismissed. 9. No doubt a statutory bar has been imposed under Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for entertaining second revision at the instance of the petitioner who had preferred a revision against the same order before the Sessions Court. It is also well settled that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. But then, in rare and exceptional cases, when the Court comes to the conclusion that gross illegality has been committed by the Courts below which has caused gross miscarriage of justice, inherent power of the High Court can be exercised, but then sparingly. (See 1995 (II) OLR 50)2. 10. In the touch-stone of the afore-said ratio, this Court once again scrutinized the materials. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage of the petitioner with Opp. Party No. 1 and so also with regard to birth of O.P. No.2 out of the said wed-lock. There is also no dispute that the wife Opp. Party No. 1 came to her parental house on confinement. According to the husband, after the child was born, the wife did not return to her in-laws house and such action of the wife was voluntary, inasmuch as he has absolutely no objection to maintain her if she comes and stays with him. To substantiate his plea that the wife out of her own volition refused to live with her husband, the petitioner has relied upon the ex parte decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed in T.S. No. 41 of 1991 by a competent Civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also forcefully submitted that the wife (Opp. Party No. l) has wilfully deserted him as would be devident from the fact that in T.S. No. 28/35 of 1992-93, she abandoned the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner also forcefully submitted that the wife (Opp. Party No. l) has wilfully deserted him as would be devident from the fact that in T.S. No. 28/35 of 1992-93, she abandoned the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, this case was squarely covered under Section 125(4) of the Code and the orders passed by both the Courts directing to pay maintenance, were unjust, illegal and amount to gross miscarriage of justice. 11. This submission, however, will not help the petitioner inasmuch as it appears from the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.2 that the petitioner-husband has kept Pravasini Naik and both of them are leading their life as husband and wife, The petitioner has also begotten three children through Pravasini. P.W 2 is a cousin of Pravasini and his statement has a great bearing. Similarly, O.P.W.2 is the paternal uncle of the petitioner-husband and a close relation. In his deposition, he has categorically stated that the husband has kept one concubine in absence of his wife and has begotten two children through that concubine who belongs to village Tapaganja and she has been residing with the husband with her children in their joint family house. This evidence leaves no doubt that the husband is not only living with another lady, but has also begotten children through her. According to me no woman with self-respect and dignity will agree to share the same roof with her husband’s concubine. Thus, I hold that there are sufficient reasons for the wife-Opp. Party to refuse to stay with her husband. Sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. stipulates that no wife is entitled to receive any allowance from her husband if she without any sufficient reason refuses to live with her husband or if they are living separately with mutual consent or if she is living in adultery. None of these ingredients is satisfied in the present case. The husband has also failed to prove his case within the four corners of this sub-section. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that there were/ and are sufficient reasons for the wife to refuse to live with her husband as there are voluminous evidence to reveal that the husband is staying in a joint family house along with the concubine and the children born through her. 12. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that there were/ and are sufficient reasons for the wife to refuse to live with her husband as there are voluminous evidence to reveal that the husband is staying in a joint family house along with the concubine and the children born through her. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I have no hesitation to hold that the orders passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and there is no reason to interfere with the same. While the petitioner-husband has the luxury of having a concubine he is certainly bound to maintain his legally married wife and the son. However, considering the financial condition of the husband, I reduce the maintenance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 400/- per month for each of the Opp. Parties from the date of filing of the application. 13. With the aforesaid modification, the Criminal Misc. Case is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Three thousand). Petition dismissed with cost Rs.3000/-. 1.1993(6) OCR 576. 2. 1995 (II) OLR 50.