IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16464 of 2008 JAINUL MIAN, Son of Ismail Mian, resident of Village-Basopatti Bakuchhia, Police Station- Jogapatti ( Shanichari), District-West Champaran ---- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Salamunnisa , daughter of Hadis Mian, resident of Village- Parua Tola, Police Station- Lauria, District- West Champaran ----------- Opp.Parties ----------- 02 01-07-2010 Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri A.M.P.Metha, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.3.2008 passed by the learned Fast Track Court No.4, Bettiah in Cr.Rev. No.263 of 2005. The revisional court by the impugned order has affirmed the order dated 22.8.2005, which was passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Maintenance Case No.23M of 1998/ T.R.No.1243 of 2002. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has enhanced the maintenance amount in favour of Opp. Party no.2 from Rs.500/- to Rs.800/- and also directed to pay Rs.400/-each to two children of Opp.Party no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging both the orders, submits that the learned courts below, while passing orders, have not considered the income of the petitioner and on this ground alone, it has been prayed to quash the impugned orders. I have perused the materials available on record. In the present case, in the year 2002 maintenance amount was fixed as Rs.500/- and Rs.200/- each to two children. I am of the view that after lapse of more than three years from the date of earlier orders, the learned Magistrate, while enhancing the amount of maintenance, has committed no error. Moreover, the order of the learned Magistrate was already challenged by the petitioner by way of Cr.Revision petition which was dismissed. Accordingly, the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. amounts to second revision. In view of the facts and circumstances of the Case, it is not a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)