JUDGMENT : Sonia Gokani, J. The present petition is preferred by Irshadhussain Ahmed Jabar under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India urging inter alia to set aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3 dated 15.12.2007 at Panchmahals at Godhra. 2. Brief facts are as follows:- 2.1 The petitioner and respondent No.1 are legally wedded husband and wife. Respondent No.1 preferred application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District: Panchmahals being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 150 of 2000, wherein the trial Court awarded Rs. 1000/- per month towards maintenance. 2.2. Respondent No.1 herein filed application under Section 127 of the Act for enhancement of the maintenance being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2002, which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 23.3.2005 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 4000/- to respondent No. 1 and minor son towards maintenance. It is averred by the petitioner that the same came to his knowledge when the respondent No.1 filed an application for recovery of difference of maintenance amount before the trial Court. 3. The petitioner, therefore, moved an application for condonation of delay by filing Criminal Revision Application challenging the said order of enhancement. The learned Sessions Court, not having been satisfied with the grounds of delay, had rejected the same vide its order dated 31.1.2006. 4. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Special Criminal Application No.467 of 2006 before the High Court challenging the rejection of condonation of delay. This High Court, vide its order dated 13.11.2006 (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.) allowed the Special Criminal Application by putting the present petitioner to certain terms. 5. A propose the said order, the Criminal Revision Application No.26 of 2007 had been registered before the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Godhra and after bipartite hearing, the same was rejected. 6. Impugned order of rejection of the Criminal Revision is under challenge before this Court in the instant case. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Revision Application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Court, second Revision by the same party under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is prohibited by the statute. 7. This Court heard at length the learned advocates for both the sides. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Revision Application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Court, second Revision by the same party under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is prohibited by the statute. 7. This Court heard at length the learned advocates for both the sides. 8. It is contended strenuously by learned advocate Mr. Arpit Kapadia for the petitioner that this Court has inherent powers to correct the illegality, which has vitiated the order of enhancement against which the Criminal Miscellaneous Application was preferred. It is also further argued that the person, who had been served by the Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2002 (enhancement application) is neither his father nor the relative and, therefore, the order is passed ex-parte prejudicial to the interest of the present petitioner and he cannot be condemned unheard. It was also argued that he has limited means being a driver and his profession demands his being out of station most of the time in the month. When that notice itself has not been served, anything touching the merit of the case should not be binding to the petitioner. It is further contended by the learned advocate Mr. Kapadia that even otherwise there existed no ground for enhancement of amount of maintenance. Accordingly, he has urged the Court to exercise its inherent powers to quash and set aside the order of enhancement. Learned advocate Mr. Kapadia for the petitioner has also argued that since father of the present respondent No.1 is an advocate, she has harassed the petitioner by protracted litigation and there is a regular payment of maintenance amount to the wife and child. 9. In reply to the same, learned advocate Mr. Tirmizi has submitted that though father of respondent No. 1 is an advocate, predicament of the respondent No.1 is such that she would not have survived as the present petitioner has chosen to prefer to enter or avoid the litigation as per his own sweet will and desire. The learned advocate Mr. M.M.Tirmizi for the respondent No.1 vehemently argued that the petitioner is remarried and has a child begotten out of the second marriage. It does not lie in his mouth now to speak about protracted litigation and his limited resources as he ought to have been careful while taking such steps. The learned advocate Mr. M.M.Tirmizi for the respondent No.1 vehemently argued that the petitioner is remarried and has a child begotten out of the second marriage. It does not lie in his mouth now to speak about protracted litigation and his limited resources as he ought to have been careful while taking such steps. Attempt is being made by the learned advocate to point out that his address in the earlier Special Criminal Application No.467 of 2006 as also in the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2002 preferred by the respondent No.1 under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the same, where notice was also duly served. However, he chose not to appear before the Court for a very long time. in the application for enhancement preferred in the year 2002, order has been delivered in January, 2005. He has also pertinently pointed out to this Court that after the enhancement of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/- Revision Application No.117 of 2000 was preferred by the present petitioner contending that the issue was decided exparte and the revision application was disallowed. Against that the petitioner preferred Special Criminal Application No.43 of 2002 before this Court and the same has been rejected on 28.6.2000. Heavy reliance is placed by the learned advocate on the following decisions:- 1. Rajathi v. C. Ganeshan reported in (1996) 6 SCC 326. 2. Ganesh Narayan Hedge v. S. Bangarappa & Ors. reported in 1995 SCC (Cri.) 634. 3. Akshar Share Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 1998 (2) GLH 483 . 4. Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and others reported in AIR 1984 SC 38 . 5. State of Haryana and others v. Manoj Kumar reported in 2010(4) SCC 350 . 6. Roshanlal v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2004 (13) SCC 559 . 7. Khimji Vidhu v. Premier High School reported in 1999 (9) SCC 264 . 8. Jagatsinh N. Soda v. Indravadan Ramniklal Mehta reported in 2003(3) GLR 1849 . 9. Makhdum Ali v. Nargis Bano and another reported in (1983) 1 DMC 40 . 10. Vanita Maru v. Manak Chandra and others reported in (1984) 1 DMC 460 10. 7. Khimji Vidhu v. Premier High School reported in 1999 (9) SCC 264 . 8. Jagatsinh N. Soda v. Indravadan Ramniklal Mehta reported in 2003(3) GLR 1849 . 9. Makhdum Ali v. Nargis Bano and another reported in (1983) 1 DMC 40 . 10. Vanita Maru v. Manak Chandra and others reported in (1984) 1 DMC 460 10. On duly considering the submissions of both the sides and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the firm opinion that the present petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which deserves dismissal for the reasons to be followed hereinafter:- 11.1 It would be apt to advert to the contentions of both the sides prior to the application of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, pressed into service by the learned advocates for the parties. 11.2 The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 are the legally wedded husband and wife and his son is begotten from the said wedlock. After a rift in the their matrimonial life, respondent No.1 wife preferred the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.150 of 2000 under the Criminal Procedure Code towards maintenance of mother and son both, where the Court had passed an order of Rs. 1000/- in favour of the respondent No.1 Sajedabanu and her minor son. Criminal Revision Application was preferred against the said order being Revision Application No.117 of 2000 by the present petitioner, which was rejected, against which, he preferred the Special Criminal Application No.43 of 2001, which came to be decided in favour of the respondent No.1 on 28.6.2000. It is also not disputed that subsequently for enhancement of the said maintenance of both the mother and the child respondent No.1 preferred a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2002, where the Court had ordered enhancement of the sum to Rs. 2000/- for each of the petitioners and thus, directed the present petitioner to award an amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4000/- to the respondent No.1 on 23.3.2005. 12. Recovery Application No.307 of 2005 was preferred on the present respondent on 30.9.2005 and recovery warrant was issued by the learned Magistrate. 2000/- for each of the petitioners and thus, directed the present petitioner to award an amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4000/- to the respondent No.1 on 23.3.2005. 12. Recovery Application No.307 of 2005 was preferred on the present respondent on 30.9.2005 and recovery warrant was issued by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Special Criminal Application No.467 of 2006, which was allowed by the Court directing the present petitioner to deposit balance amount of Rs. 75,000/- within the period of 6 weeks from the date of order and permitting the respondent No.1 to withdraw 50% of the said amount and remaining 50% to be fixed deposited subject to the outcome of the Revision Application. 13. Undisputedly, Criminal Revision Application No.26 of 2007 has been heard by the Court below and decided after adjudicating the issues adverted before it. It is necessary to make mention of the fact that second revision by the same party is prohibited under the Statute as per Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. Under the circumstances, it would be apt to make a note of the fact that thrust is on non-service of summons and passing of ex parte order while enhancing the amount of maintenance under Section 127 of the Code, which is also strenuously argued before this Court as well. The Revisional Court, after a detailed discussion as to how the service was effected to the adult member of the family and as to how the address mentioned in the Criminal Miscellaneous Application memo as also in Special Criminal Application preferred before the High Court the same, had on categorical terms concluded that the order being not determined ex parte as despite due service, the present petitioner chose not to appear before the concerned Court and, therefore, the order cannot be called ex parte. The Court also took note of the fact that if it comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate that the person is attempting to avoid this service, or willfully neglects to attend the Court, he can chose to hear and determine the case ex parte. It is, of course, the right of the husband in such a case to approach the Court showing good cause within 3 months of the passing of the order, which can result into setting aside such ex parte order. 15. It is, of course, the right of the husband in such a case to approach the Court showing good cause within 3 months of the passing of the order, which can result into setting aside such ex parte order. 15. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, while deciding the Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2007, was of the opinion that instead of preferring application under Section 126(2) of the Code and approaching the Magistrate for setting aside such an ex-parte order of enhancement, the petitioner has directly approached the Sessions Court under Section 397 of the Code relying on some of the authorities mentioned in the order. 16. There is absence of any provision in Section 127 pari materia to Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure since Section 126(2) specifically makes mention of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, as the application for enhancement of the amount under Section 127 of the Code is also for the maintenance and the order passed under Section 127 would merge with the order under Section 125, it would be necessary for the parties to approach the concerned Court under Section 126(2) before moving the Criminal Revision Application. Although this was not the sole ground to reject the revision application. Criminal Revision Application has been rejected, essentially, on the ground that no cause of the order being ex parte survives from the face of the evidence on record. 17. Attention of this Court is drawn to the order passed in Special Criminal Application No.1513 of 1997 by this very High Court on 25.11.1997. In a similar situation, when a party had attempted to approach the Court preferring a Special Criminal Application under Section 482 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court held it to be an attempt to defeat the mandate of Section 397(3) of the Code and on that very ground, the application was dismissed by holding the same as circumventing the provision of the law. 18. The Apex Court in the case of Ganesh Narayan Hedge v. S. Bangarappa & Ors. (supra), held that the dismissal of revision by Sessions Court would not bar the High Court from exercising its inherent powers but the High Court should not act as a second revisional Court nor can it enter into pronouncement, truth or the complaint or the defence. 19. (supra), held that the dismissal of revision by Sessions Court would not bar the High Court from exercising its inherent powers but the High Court should not act as a second revisional Court nor can it enter into pronouncement, truth or the complaint or the defence. 19. In another decision of the Rajathi v. C. Ganesan (supra) the Apex Court has held that after the dismissal of revision application firstly by the Sessions Court, there is a bar of the second revision and inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be utilized as a substitute for the second revision. It is further held in the said judgment that it was not necessary for the High Court to examine the whole evidence threadbare to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Rather in the case the trial Court is to take prima facie view and it is not necessary for the Court to go into the matrimonial dispute. In the case of Rajathi (supra) the Court has reiterated the ratio that when there is bar on second revision after the dismissal of one by the Session Court, inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be utilized as substitute for the second revision. 20. Views of the High Courts of Delhi and MP for maintenance of revision under Section 397 without approaching the concerned Court under Section 126(2) of the Code is favouring the arguments that no revision can be entertained in absence of exercise of powers to avail efficacious other remedies. Similar nature of facts were there when Delhi High Court decided in the case of Makhdum Ali v. Nargis Bano and another (Supra) and the Court had found the husband's conduct through out proceedings over a period of time was such that he had been appearing, disappearing and reappearing in the case at his will and pleasure. Since this Court is not to act as an appellate authority nor to allow the petitioner to circumvent provision of law, the Sessions Court has substance in holding that the revision application should not be entertained when the petitioner chose not to prefer application under Section 126 (2) of the Code. 21. Since this Court is not to act as an appellate authority nor to allow the petitioner to circumvent provision of law, the Sessions Court has substance in holding that the revision application should not be entertained when the petitioner chose not to prefer application under Section 126 (2) of the Code. 21. Assuming that the person was unaware of some such provision and, therefore, has chosen to approach the Court preferring the revision application or that he can directly prefer revisional jurisdiction without availing alternative legal remedy there also the Court has elaborated from the record and proceedings, that the order passed was not ex-parte and there was a due service to the adult member of the family. The Court, therefore, refused to call the order ex parte and ordered rightly so. 22. In the instant case also, as rightly pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Tirmizi, the petitioner-husband has chosen to take shelter or shield of his being a driver and, therefore, he attempted to justify his absence from Godhra. Believing said aspect, for the sake of argument that continuous presence of the petitioner is not feasible on account of his nature of job, but he has failed to point out the circumstances whereby he can justify his absence for a long duration even after the due service to the adult member of the family. He has a second wife and a child, the fact of which is not disputed, person working as a driver may be away for some time but would naturally return home after a while. There cannot be a continuous absence of nearly 2½ years from his native, which is also not the case of the petitioner. There is no improbability or illegality of the order pointed out before this Court. On the contrary, this conduct of the petitioners appears to be a clear attempt to circumvent the provision of law, which does not permit the second revision. Even assuming the jurisdiction under Section 482 in the wake of the facts and circumstances and the legal position mentioned hereinabove, then also, the Court is of the opinion that there is no reason much less any worthy reason for this Court to make use of its inherent jurisdiction for setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application, which is found to be reasoned and just. In this premise, the present petition fails and stands dismissed with costs to the respondent of Rs. 2,500/-. Petition dismissed.