JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar whereby the Revisional Court has affirmed the order dated 9.7.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kuchaman City in Case No. 210/2008 directing the petitioner to make payment of T 1500/-per month to the respondent No. 2 as maintenance. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. Thus he submits that the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. deserves to be quashed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Section 20(d) of the Domestic Violence Act, postulates that the monetary' relief under the said Act can be granted irrespective of the award of maintenance to the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thus, no benefit can be claimed by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent has been awarded maintenance under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. 5. So far as challenge to the orders impugned on merits is concerned, after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and after going through the record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has given substantial reasons for accepting the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. A meagre sum of Rs. 1500/- has been directed to be paid to the respondent as maintenance which cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination. The petitioner did not lead any evidence so as to demonstrate the efforts he undertook for bringing the respondent to the matrimonial home. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is the respondent who left the matrimonial home without justification is not fortified. The findings recorded at by the learned Trial Court after due and thorough appreciation of evidence have been affirmed in revision as well and do not call for any interference by exercising the inherent powers of this Court. That apart as a matter of fact, this miscellaneous petition is nothing but a second revision by a same party which is barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition being devoid of any merit is rejected. That apart as a matter of fact, this miscellaneous petition is nothing but a second revision by a same party which is barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition being devoid of any merit is rejected. The petitioner is given opportunity to deposit the arrears of maintenance in four equal trimonthly instalments. He shall also continue to make payment of current maintenance to the respondent by 10th of each month. 1 If the petitioner does not make the payment of the maintenance amount as directed above, the learned Trial Court shall issue warrant of arrest on the failure to comply with the direction given hereinabove. The stay application is also rejected. Record be sent back.Petition dismissed. *******