T.Chatterjee, J. - (1.)-This revisional application is directed against an order being order No 102 dated 23rd May, 1994 passed by Sri. R.N. Mallick Choudhury, Additional District Judge, second court at Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 29 of 1993.
(2.)On or about 25th April, 1988 the husband, Basudeb Das as a plaintiff filed a matrimonial suit for divorce against the wife who is the petitioner in this revisional application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On an application made by the petitioner in the pending suit for alimony pendente lite under section 24 of the Act, the trial court by an order date 12th September, 1989 provided a monthly maintenance of Rs. 350/- to the petitioner although in the application the petitioner had prayed for Rs. 1,250/- per month. In the said order, the trial court also directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to the petitioner on account of litigation cost and a sum of Rs. 100/- per month on account of arrears of alimony till the arrear amount was liquidated. Subsequently, an application for increase of alimony pendent lite was filed by the petitioner as, according to the petitioner, the salary of the husband/opposite party was substantially increased in the mean time. By an order dated 23rd May, 1994 the aforesaid application for increase of alimony pendent lite was dismissed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the wife/petiotioner has come up to this court in revision. This revisional application was moved initially before a Division Bench of this court on 5th September, 1994 when the following order was passed:-
"Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within 10 days from date and reply thereto if any, be filed within three days thereafter and let the application come up for hearing as a contested one fortnight hence."

(3.)In view of the amendment of the appellate side rules this revisional application was listed for hearing before a learned Judge of this court. Finally, this revisional application was taken up for hearing by me. When this revisional application was taken up for hearing, the learned Advocate for the husband/opposite parry brought to my notice the fact of decreeing the suit ex parte in favour of the plaintiff/opposite parry on 31st March, 1995 by filing a certified copy of the ex parte decree in court which may be kept on record. The ordering portion of the ex parte judgment passed on 31st March. 1995 is to the following effect:-
"That the suit is decreed ex parte. The marriage held between the parties to the suit on 11th December, 1997 is declared null and void."

;