10.06.2025. Item No. 3. Court No. 13 ap (Assigned) F.M.A. No. 3864 of 2016 Smt. Atrayee Banerjee Versus Dr. Pinaki Mukherjee Mr. Indranath Mukherjee, Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, Mr. Argha Bhattacharjee, Mr. Subhabrata Banerjee. …For the appellant. Ms. Hashnuhana Chakraborty, Mr. Vinay Kumar Purohit. …For the respondent. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5th May, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Calcutta in Miscellaneous Case No. 102 of 2007 (Smt. Atrayee Banerjee – Vs. – Dr. Pinaki Mukherjee) rejecting an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The brief facts relevant to the case are that in a Matrimonial Suit being No. 100 of 2000, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree. During the pendency of the aforesaid matrimonial suit, alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was being paid by consent, by the respondent/husband to the appellant/wife. 3. The decree for divorce was not challenged by the appellant/wife. The appellant about a year after 2 the decree for divorce, woke up to the fact that she did not receive or make any claim for permanent alimony. 4. Admittedly, the appellant has not married again after the divorce. She is presently living with her brothers at her ancestral house. 5. On such application for permanent alimony made by the appellant/wife under Section 25 of the Act of 1955, evidence was led by both the parties. The Trial Court on, inter alia, the ground that the respondent was a retired surgeon, had a 38 years old daughter, who was schizophrenia and completely dependent on the father and the father suffered a major heart attack in the year 2008, has left regular employment and is eking out a living by looking after some old patients found favour with the respondent. The Trial Court further found that the appellant had a Tea Garden as part of her ancestral property and came from a rich family. Considering the above, the claim for permanent alimony was rejected in toto. Hence, the instant appeal. 6. Since after delivery of the judgment by the Trial Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered a decision in the case of Rajnesh – Vs. – Neha & Another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324. Pursuant to the said decision affidavit of assets are required to be called for and were called by this Court from both the sides and have been filed. Objection to the wife’s affidavit of assets has been filed 3 by the appellant. The husband is yet to file objection to the affidavit of assets of the wife. 7. This Court directs that the respondent/husband may file objection to the affidavit of assets filed by the appellant within a period of two weeks from date. 8. Since a new set of guidelines, laws and rules have been framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajnesh’s case (supra), this Court is of the view that the matter is required to be revisited by the Trial Court on the basis of the new evidence that has come on record. 9. The parties may file the same affidavits of assets and objection that has been filed before this Court, before the Trial Court within a period of three weeks from date. The impugned decision dated 5th May, 2016 shall stand set aside and the Misc. Case No. 102 of 2007 shall be restored to the file of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta forthwith. 10. The parties shall be at liberty to lead fresh oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court. They may cross-examine each other witnesses. After conclusion of the oral evidence by the parties, the Trial Court shall hear the matter afresh following the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indian in Rajnesh’s case (supra) and pronounce a fresh judgment as expeditiously as possible, preferably 4 within a period of four months from the date of communication of a copy of this order. The parties shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments before the Court below. 11. Let the T.C.R. received by this Court be sent back at the cost and expense of the appellant to be put in with the Registrar by tomorrow. 12. At the joint requests of both the parties, list Misc. Case No. 102 of 2007 before the Trial Court on 30th June, 2025. 13. With the aforesaid observations, F.M.A. 3864 of 2016 shall stand disposed of. 14. There will be no order as to costs. 15. Registry of this Court and the parties shall communicate a copy of this order to the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta forthwith for taking necessary action in the matter. 16. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)