p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MATA No.324 of 2024 Hrudayaranjan Behera …. Appellant(s) Represented by Adv.– Mr. Prasanta Kumar Satapathy, Advocate -Versus- Bhabasmita Jena …. Respondent(s) Represented by Adv. Ms. Mohini Sahoo, Advocate MATA No.202 of 2025 Bhabasmita Jena …. Appellant(s) Represented by Adv.– Ms. Mohini Sahoo, Advocate -Versus- Hrudaya Ranjan Behera …. Respondent(s) Represented by Adv. Mr. Prasanta Kumar Satapathy, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 01.07.2026 (Hybrid mode) 04. 1. Heard Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the appellant-husband and Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel for the respondent-wife. p. 2 2. Since both the Appeals are arising out of the matrimonial dispute involving the same parties and in both the appeals the impugned judgment is common, the Appeals are disposed of vide this common order. 3. The appellant-husband in MATA No.324 of 2024 initiated a Civil Proceeding No.41 of 2022 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife. The said proceeding was allowed ex parte by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.2024. While allowing the proceeding, the learned Family Judge directed the appellant-husband to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent-wife towards permanent alimony within ninety-two days from the date of the decree. Aggrieved by the said judgment, insofar as it directs payment of the aforesaid amount towards permanent alimony, the appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the quantum of alimony awarded. MATA No.202 of 2025 has been preferred by the respondent-wife challenging the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No.41 of 2022. Being aggrieved by the decree of divorce as well as the quantum of permanent alimony awarded, which she contends to be grossly p. 3 inadequate, the respondent-wife has preferred the present appeal. 4. It is also borne from record that before assailing the divorce decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.41 of 2022, the respondent-wife moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree. The said application was registered as CMA No.109 of 2024 and is pending adjudication before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. 5. Both the appeals were heard on many occasions. Eventually, the appeals were listed for hearing on 29.06.2026. After arguing for some time, learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed that the judgment dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.41 of 2022 may be set aside and the parties may be relegated to contest the proceeding before the Family Judge, particularly in view of the fact that the application filed by the respondent-wife under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. is still pending. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for today so as to enable the learned counsel for the parties to obtain instructions from their respective clients. Today, on instruction, learned counsel both the parties have reiterated their stand p. 4 and jointly submitted that the common impugned judgment and decree under challenge in both the appeals may be set aside and the parties be relegated to the learned Family Court to contest the civil proceeding initiated by the appellant-husband. 6. The appeals are allowed on consent terms and the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.41 of 2022 is set aside. The parties are relegated to the Court below to participate in the proceeding afresh. Both the parties shall appear before learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.41 of 2022 on 20.07.2026. 7. With the aforementioned observation, both the MATAs are disposed of. (Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Sibo Sankar Mishra) Judge Swarna Designation: Senior Stenographer