Both the revision cases have been preferred by one and the same person, the former against an ex parte order of maintenance passed in favour of the respondent, the latter against an order of maintenance passed after contest. The respondent herein is the illegitimate minor son of the petitioner. His mother, one Mangammal, filed a petition under S. 125(1)(b), Cr.P.C. 1973, for grant of maintenance to him. The averment of the mother was that the petitioner had neglected the child and failed to provide maintenance for it. The principal defence in the case was that on account of a maintenance decree, passed by a Civil Court, in favour of the minor son, an independent application under S. 125(1)(b), Cr.P.C., was not maintainable. The objection was not sustained and the learned magistrate granted maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month. That order is challenged by the petitioner in these revision cases.

2. Since the ex parte order of maintenance has been set aside and the petitioner granted an opportunity to contest the case, it is not necessary to consider the Cr.R.C. No. 344 of 1975 on merits The points raised therein are also considered in Cr.R.C. No.