JUDGMENT : Mir Dara Sheko, J. The defects, as reported by the Stamp Reporter, have already been cured. 2. Heard Mr. Amit Prokash Lahiri, learned Counsel for the appellant/wife and Mr. Sadananda Ganguly, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Rahaman, learned Counsel for the respondent husband. Supplementary affidavit dated 23.12.2016 annexing the receipt showing compliance or order dated 30.11.2016 and affidavit in reply of the petitioner be kept on record. Perused the materials available on record, as submitted by the parties. 3. Mr. Lahiri submitted that under section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 even after decree of divorce between the parties either of them may seek for variation, modification or rescind any order of permanent alimony. While the wife filed a Misc. Case No. 13 of 2015 again for enhancing the amount of permanent alimony learned Trial Judge only attending the application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the husband dismissed the said Misc. Case itself with the penultimate observation, set out under :- "I have considered the submission of both side. I have perused the both petitions of the O.P. as well as the petitioner. I have gone through the orders, after perusing the same it appears to me that over the selfsame matter and selfsame parties one Review petition is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta, to that effect the copy of the order has been placed by the O.P. before the Court wherefrom it appears that the application being C.A.N. No. 3278 of 2016 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and this matter will be appeared. As such since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta over the selfsame issue and between selfsame parties, I am not in a position to pass any such order in respect of the permanent alimony. So, the Misc. Case which has been filed from the side of the petitioner is liable to be rejected at this stage. Hence, it is ordered, that the Misc. case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs." 4. It is pertinent to mention that after hearing both sides including Mr. Ganguly regarding condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, this Court held the same is maintainable and accordingly, the appeal has been listed for hearing. Now, Mr. case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs." 4. It is pertinent to mention that after hearing both sides including Mr. Ganguly regarding condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, this Court held the same is maintainable and accordingly, the appeal has been listed for hearing. Now, Mr. Ganguly referring an unreported decision of this Court in F.M.A.T. 2817 of 2006 (Rita Dey Chowdhury nee Nandy vs. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury) argued that the appeal ought not to have been held maintainable under Order 41 and he further submits that at any point of time he can raise the point of maintainability of the appeal. 5. To counter on this aspect, Mr. Lahiri filed also copy of an order of this Court dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court upon hearing and on consent of the selfsame parties. Submitted that the Division Bench of this Court heard the matter entertaining both the same as appeals and both the appeals were disposed of on that day settling the amount of alimony. Mr. Ganguly in those appeals had also defended this respondent without raising objection about maintainability of the appeals preferred by both sides over amount of alimony. Copy of said order dated 16.12.2009 is kept on record, relevant portions of said order dated 16.12.2009 is set out hereunder :- "………….. ……………. …………. …………. …………. Both the appeals (F.A. 193 of 2008 and F.M.A. 2561 of 2007) stand disposed of. Accordingly, the connected application (CAN 3154 of 2009) also stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs." 6. In view of the fact, as apprised by the learned Advocates of both sides, the admitted situation is that the previous appeal being F.A.T. 3194 of 2006 (renumbered to F.M.A. 193 of 2008) was preferred by the wife and F.M.A.T. 2817 of 2006 (renumbered to F.M.A. 2561 of 2007) was preferred by the husband where the lis was over quantum of maintenance and this Court by passing aforesaid order dated 16.12.2009 enhanced the quantum from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,000/-. 7. Sometimes, thereafter, there was a decree of judicial separation between the parties under Order dated 25.5.2016 passed by the learned Trial Judge. 8. Ultimately by a regular decree of divorce the marital tie has been dissolved between the parties by judgement dated 30th November, 2012. In view of the Misc. 7. Sometimes, thereafter, there was a decree of judicial separation between the parties under Order dated 25.5.2016 passed by the learned Trial Judge. 8. Ultimately by a regular decree of divorce the marital tie has been dissolved between the parties by judgement dated 30th November, 2012. In view of the Misc. case No. 02 of 2010 filed by the wife (under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act), the alimony was further enhanced from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. Aggrieved, the wife again moved this Court by filing C.O. 4228 of 2012 and the quantum of alimony was further enhanced by order dated 2nd February, 2015 from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month. As against said order of this Court the wife though had moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the matter was remanded to the Single Bench of this Court with direction to the parties to move a review application. Accordingly, the wife filed revisional application, being Review No. 85 of 2016, before this Court which has been disposed of on 15.9.2016 enhancing the alimony to the extent of Rs.23,000/-. Against such order of enhancement of alimony dated 15.9.2016 the husband moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 9. We are apprised also of the admitted fact that the wife had appeared before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter is still pending and there is no stay order in respect of payment of the amount to the extent of Rs. 23,000/- as enhanced by this Court in the review Application No. 85 of 2016. 10. It is pertinent to mention that while the Misc. Case No. 13 of 2015 was filed before the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Hooghly, or, even when the impugned order No. 33 dated 25.5.2016 was passed by the learned Trial Judge the review application under reference was pending in the High Court. Said Misc. Case was filed by the wife under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, where the husband filed application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging its maintainability on the ground that the review petition since was pending in the High Court, the wife/appellant had no right to file the instant application under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 11. 11. In view of the facts, as detailed above, there cannot be any legal doubt that either of the spouses even after divorce can seek redress under section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act in appropriate case. In the instant Misc. Case the wife has come up with the application obviously to get modification in the order of alimony to get it at enhanced rate at the pre-review stage, and after review order of the High Court the quantum of alimony has reached upto Rs. 23,000/- payable month by month as indicated in the order. But the same is yet to reach finality since it is pending before the Supreme Court. It may be ventilated once again as we have been apprised of, that there is no stay order as against making payment of alimony at the rate of Rs. 23,000/- in terms of the review order of the High Court. It is pertinent to mention that until and unless said order is being modified, varied or altered, the husband is liable to carry out the same, of course, subject to adjustment in future, if such quantum of alimony is reduced or modified in any altered situation, or, in the alternative appropriate step may be taken by the wife for realisation of the permanent alimony at such enhanced rate, if so advised. 12. Now, looking to the order impugned as already quoted above, we find that the learned Trial Judge did not dispose of the Misc. Case under section 25 of the Act on merit whatsoever, rather, the penultimate portion of said order clearly indicates that in view of pendency of the review application before the High Court being C.A.N. 3278 of 2016 learned Trial Judge has chosen to hold "the Misc. Case which has been filed from the side of the petitioner is liable to be rejected at this stage". and the order impugned as passed upon hearing of an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the husband/respondent, has lost its force, rather become redundant as a consequence of disposal of the review application. 13. However, we observe, that to avoid multiplicity of proceeding between the parties, and, to meet the ends of justice over the aspect, and, specially when the learned Trial Judge expressed difficulty in view of pendency of the revisional application at that stage, ought to have kept the Misc. 13. However, we observe, that to avoid multiplicity of proceeding between the parties, and, to meet the ends of justice over the aspect, and, specially when the learned Trial Judge expressed difficulty in view of pendency of the revisional application at that stage, ought to have kept the Misc. Case on hold instead of dismissing the same entertaining the application under section 151 of the Code filed by the husband. Since the impugned order has not been passed on merit, virtually there is no need also to pronounce any further observation in appeal on merit, save and except directing the learned Trial Judge to decide the Misc. Case No. 13 of 2015 afresh, as soon as the intimation with result of the proceeding pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court be intimated to the learned Trial Judge. 14. The parties also are given liberty to intimate the result of the proceeding pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court immediately after its completion before the learned Trial Judge, so that learned Trial Judge may proceed thereafter with the Misc. Case No. 13 of 2015 along with the application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure under reference for its disposal in accordance with law if the parties then do press for its hearing on merit. 15. In view of above, the order No. 33 dated 25.5.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Hooghly in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2015 is set aside and is quashed. The appeal is allowed. As a consequence thereof the Stay application having become redundant is formally disposed of. 16. No order as to cost. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. 18. Department is directed to send a copy of this order to learned Court below for information.