IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MATA No.35 of 2012 Jogendra Dash …. Appellant Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate -versus- Vijay Laxmi Dash …. Respondent Represented By Adv. – Mr. K. K. Jena, Advocate for respondent no.1 CORAM: JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO ORDER 08.08.2025 (Hybrid Mode) 1. On 04.07.2025 the following order was passed: “1. Pursuant to our order dated 30.06.2025, learned counsel appearing for the appellant produced the Demand Draft dated 01.07.2025 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (one lakh fifty thousand) drawn on State Bank of India, Munigada Branch in favour of respondent-wife. The original bank draft is handed over to learned counsel representing the respondent-wife, so that she can encash the said amount. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the appellant- husband, call this matter on 30.07.2025. In the meanwhile, remainder amount due shall be remitted to the back account of the respondent-wife, failing which same threat of police action continues. 2. Pursuant to our order dated 30.06.2025, the Registrar (Judicial) has put up a note in response to our observation Order No. 23. Page 2 of 4 regarding the scanned copy of the order sheet. The said note is considered. The person concerned shall be more careful in future in handling the file and maintaining the same in proper order. A copy of the order shall be handed over to the person /agency concerned by the Registrar (Judicial) for follow up action. 3. Learned counsel Mr. M.K. Rath, an associate of Mr. B.S. Tripathy, submits that the appellant has opted change of counsel. In view of such submission, names of Mr. Tripathy and associates be deleted from the cause list and the case brief. Name of learned counsel Mr. S.K. Rout, who is appearing on behalf of appellant after obtaining consent from the counsel earlier appearing, shall be mentioned in the cause list as well as in case brief” 2. Pursuant to our earlier order the Demand Draft dated 01.07.2025 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited. Thereafter certain doubts were expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the Bank Account of the respondent and other details for which the order dated 30.07.2025 was passed and reproduced herein: “1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the demand draft of Rs.1,50,000/- as directed was received. The draft was handed over to the brother of the respondent no.1-wife and it has been deposited in her Bank account. 2. The learned counsel for the Appellant expresses doubt regarding such account and other details. 3. In such view of the matter, the parties are directed to appear before this Court on 8th August, 2025 at “2.00PM”. They shall produce their bank details and other identity proof before the Court also to be verified by the learned counsels appearing for the parties.” 3. Today when the matter is taken up as directed by the order dated 30.07.2025 both the appellant and respondent are present in person and are identified by their respective learned counsel. Regarding the observations made by us in paragraph-3 of the order dated 30.07.2025, both the learned counsel expressed their satisfaction regarding bank account details and other details of the respondent. The appellant, who is present in person expresses his satisfaction. The copy of the passbook as produced by the appellant which is in her name, at State Bank of India, Bondamunda Branch, Bondamunda, Dist-Sundargarh is kept on record. The said passbook also shows that on 18.07.2025 amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been credited which seems to be by the draft that was deposited by the appellant. 4. Today along with a Memo, demand draft of Rs.1,93,500/- (Rupees One lakh ninety-three thousand and five hundred only) drawn on State Bank of India, Bondamunda is produced in the name of the respondent, the same shall be deposited and shall be credited to her account maintained at Bondamunda Branch. The draft in original is handed over to the respondent after retaining the copy thereof. 5. Now, the appellant who is present in Court, files a Memo signed by him also attested by learned counsel Mr. Rout that he does not want to press the appeal. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. 7. However, it is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the contention of the respective parties in pending proceedings before any other forum as that may be. The maintenance paid monthly to the respondent by the appellant shall continue to be paid. The amount received by the respondent is towards satisfaction of entire amount that was due till July, 2025 as directed in order dated 12.05.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No.227 of 2008 that was put to execution in Execution Proceeding No.16 of 2011. Personal appearance of both the parties is dispensed with. We put on record our appreciation of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties in a matter touching lives of two individuals and assisting us arriving at a reasonable conclusion and disposal of the matter and further also assisting the parties in achieving their respective objectives. Costs made easy. Copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry of this Court to the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela for record and reference in the disposed of/pending C.P./Execution Case(s). (Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Gs/Radha