Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6. 1. 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch (M. P.) in Criminal Revision No. 135/02. ( 2. ) THE applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr. P. C, praying for award of Rs. 500 per month as the maintenance allowance for herself and Rs. 1,500 for her children. Her application was registered as M. Cr. C. No. 7/90 in the Court of JMFC, Manasa, District Neemuch. Non-applicant opposed the application of the applicant. After trial, the learned Magistrate by order dated 5. 8. 2002 allowed the application in part and directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 500 per month for maintenance of the applicant alone. The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for granting maintenance for the children. The present applicant preferred a revision against the order which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 102/02. Non-applicant also preferred a revision against the order granting the maintenance to the applicant. His revision was registered as Criminal Revision No. 135/02. Both these revisions were heard and decided by the common order dated 6. 1. 2004 by Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch. By the said order the learned ASJ rejected Criminal Revision No. 102/02 filed by the applicant/ wife, while he allowed Criminal Revision No. 135/02 filed by non-applicant/ husband and quashed the part of the order passed by the learned JMFC granting Rs. 500 per month as maintenance to the applicant. The applicant has filed this revision against that part of order which has allowed the Criminal Revision No. 135/02 and rejected the application of the applicant preferred under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. ( 3. ) THE non-applicant has vehemently argued that this revision is not tenable even as it is the second revision and the bar under Section 397 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable. This submission of non-applicant cannot be accepted. The learned ASJ has decided both the revisions, one filed by applicant/ wife and other filed by non-applicant/husband by the common order dated 6. 1. 2004. The learned ASJ has rejected the Criminal Revision No. 102/02 filed by applicant/wife. Therefore, applicant cannot file the revision against the order dismissing her revision and bar under Section 397 (3), Cr. P. C. would have been applicable had the revision been filed against order dismissing Criminal Revision No. 102/02. 1. 2004. The learned ASJ has rejected the Criminal Revision No. 102/02 filed by applicant/wife. Therefore, applicant cannot file the revision against the order dismissing her revision and bar under Section 397 (3), Cr. P. C. would have been applicable had the revision been filed against order dismissing Criminal Revision No. 102/02. But the revision is against that part of order by which Criminal Revision No. 135/02 has been allowed. The revision against the order of Sessions Court passed in revision is maintainable if the applicant in both revisions is not the same. If the application of wife for maintenance is dismissed by the Sessions Court on revision by husband, subsequent revision by wife before the High Court is maintainable. The Criminal Revision No. 135/02 was filed by the non-applicant and present applicant was opposite party in that revision. The criminal revision filed by non-applicant/husband has been allowed and the order granting Rs. 500 per month as maintenance to applicant/wife has been set aside. The applicant is certainly entitled to file revision against the part of the order allowing the revision filed by non-applicant/husband and bar under Section 397 (3) does not apply. Hence, it cannot be said that this revision is second revision and is not maintainable. ( 4. ) THE learned revisional Court has disturbed the finding of the Trial Court which was based on the proper appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court. In revisional jurisdiction the evidence is not to be re-appreciated and the findings of fact shall not be disturbed unless there is any perversity. ( 5. ) THE learned revisional Court has disturbed the finding of the learned Trial Magistrate after re-appreciatingthe evidence which was not permissible under law. In Para 30 of Order dated 6. 1. 2004, the learned ASJ has observed that applicant has left her husbands house on trivial issues. The learned ASJ has not discussed as to what was the cause which led the applicant to leave her husbands house and how the learned ASJ arrived at the conclusion that the cause was trivial in nature. Without discussing the cause, the learned ASJ has opined that the applicant is living separately without any reasonable cause. In this view of the matter, the learned ASJ fell in error in disturbing those findings of Trial Court which led to grant of maintenance by it. ( 6. Without discussing the cause, the learned ASJ has opined that the applicant is living separately without any reasonable cause. In this view of the matter, the learned ASJ fell in error in disturbing those findings of Trial Court which led to grant of maintenance by it. ( 6. ) IT has been submitted by the non-applicant t,hat the application for maintenance has been filed after a long delay, hence, maintenance could not be awarded to her. It is true that application for maintenance shall be filed within a reasonable time, though, no limitation has been prescribed for filing the same, but if there is any satisfactory reason the application cannot be thrown out merely on the ground of delay. It has been averred in the application filed by the applicant that applicant is not having any source of income and she is a liability on his father. Applicant Mangla Devi has stated in her testimony before the Trial Court that her father was in service and he has now been retired. It is but natural that on retirement of her father, the applicant felt need for getting maintenance allowance from her husband. Thus, delay in filing the application stands satisfactorily explained. The applicant is legally wedded wife of non-applicant and he is obliged to maintain the applicant. The revisional Court has erred in disturbing the finding of the Trial Court which was based on proper appreciation of the evidence and which was logical and not against the law. Hence, the order of revisional Court rejecting the application of the applicant cannot be sustained. ( 7. ) THE non-applicant has placed reliance on a number of cases mentioned below: 1. AIR 1979 S. C. 381; 2. AIR 1993 S. C. 1361; 3. 1993 (1) M. P. W. N. 31; 4. 2000 (II) M. P. W. N. 175; 5. 1984 Cri L. J. 1866; 6. 1991 (1) M. P. W. N. 11; 7. 1984 Cri. L. J. NOC. 25 (ALL.); 8. 2001 (II) M. P. W. N. 194; 9. 1984 Cri. L. J. 1524; 10. 1984 M. P. W. N. 170; 11. 1984 M. P. W. N. 394; 12. 1984 M. P. W. N. 504; 13. 1989 (1) M. P. W. N. 158; 14. 1999 (1) J. L. J. 89; 15. 1981 (I) M. P. W. N. 160; 16. 1988 Cri. L. J. NOC. 44 (ALL.); 17. 1984 Cri. L. J. 1524; 10. 1984 M. P. W. N. 170; 11. 1984 M. P. W. N. 394; 12. 1984 M. P. W. N. 504; 13. 1989 (1) M. P. W. N. 158; 14. 1999 (1) J. L. J. 89; 15. 1981 (I) M. P. W. N. 160; 16. 1988 Cri. L. J. NOC. 44 (ALL.); 17. 1994 (I) M. P. W. N. 201; 18. 2004 Cri. L. J. 4470. But in the facts and circumstances of the present case, non-applicant cannot derive any help from any of the aforesaid cases. ( 8. ) IN the light of the aforesaid discussions, the revision is allowed. The order of the revisional Court as far as it relates to Criminal Revision No. 135/02, rejecting the application of the applicant is set aside and the order of JMFC granting the maintenance to the applicant is restored.