P.G. Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. The Respondent applicant filed an application Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karimganj claiming maintenance for herself and her child. The petition was resisted by the present Petitioner on the ground that there was no marriage between the parties and he is not the father of the child. The trial Court vide impugned order granted maintenance for the applicant as well as for her child. The Petitioner thereafter approached the Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Criminal Revision No. 59(4) of 2002 and the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 13.11.03. Hence, the second revision.

3. Admittedly, the second revision is barred Under Section 397(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. The only submission made by Mr. Choudhury is that although the Petitioner approached the revisional Court for DNA test to ascertain the paternity of the child, the impugned order is altogether silent on the point.

4. In the case of S. Sethurathiam Pillai v. Barbara reported in (1971) 3 SCC 923, the Apex Court had observed that an order Under Sect