JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) Petitioner No. 1, wife of the respondent and petitioners No. 2 to 4, the off springs if the respondent, had filed an application for grant of maintenance in terms of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) before the trial Court, was granted vide order, dated 1st September, 2004, with a command to the respondent to pay ` 12,000/ lump sum as maintenance per month, i.e. ` 3,000 / each. 2. The respondentPratap Singh, feeling aggrieved, questioned the same by way of revision petition before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, was allowed and order of the trial Court was set aside vide order, dated 10th May, 2007. The petitioners have questioned the said order by the medium of the present revision petition. 3. The moot question is – whether the second revision petition will lie in view of the provisions of Section 397 CrPC? The answer is in negative. 4. It appears that impugned order on the face of it is abuse of process of law and is a case of travesty of justice. Thus, it is treated petition under Section 482 CrPC. 5. After hearing for a while, learned counsel for the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and the respondenthusband has agreed to pay ‘ 20,000/, i.e. ‘ 5,000/ each to the petitioners, per month as maintenance w.e.f. 1st January, 2014. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he has no objection subject to lay a motion for enhancement before the trial Court in terms of the provisions of Sections 125 and 126 CrPC. His statement in taken on record. 7. With consent of the learned counsel, the revision petition is disposed of by providing that the respondent has to pay a maintenance to the tune of ‘ 20,000/, i.e. ‘ 5,000/ each, per month from 1st January, 2014 with liberty to the petitioners to lay motion for enhancement, in accordance with law, at the appropriate stage. Disposed of as such, alongwith all pending applications.