IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Ritu Purnima Pothal & Another (In RPFAM No.44 of 2024) Debashisha Sahoo @ Debasish Sahoo (In RPFAM No.33 of 2022) … Petitioners Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate (in RPFAM No. 44 of 2024) Mr. S.K. Baral, Advocate (in RPFAM No. 33 of 2022) -versus- Debasish Sahoo (In RPFAM No.44 of 2024) Ritu Purnima Pothal & Another (In RPFAM No.33 of 2022) … Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Baral, Advocate (in RPFAM No. 44 of 2024) Mr.B. Nayak, Advocate (in RPFAM No. 33 of 2022) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 13.03.2025 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. The present two revisions are directed against the impugned judgment dated 27.01.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Nabarangpur in Cr.P. No.29 of 2020 directing the husband to pay Rs.5,000/- to the wife and Rs.3,000/- to the daughter along with cost of Rs.2,000/-. 3. Heard Mr. Balaram Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the wife and Mr. S.K. Baral, learned counsel for the husband in both the matters and perused the record. 4. It is, however, apprised by learned counsel for both the parties that although the judgment has been passed on 27.01.2022 after passing of the judgment in Rajnesh Vrs. Neha and another; (2021) 2 SCC 324, but neither of the parties has filed any disclosure affidavit in terms of the said judgment which is mandatory in nature and, therefore, the impugned judgment is unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. In view of the aforesaid joint statements made by the learned counsel for the parties and admittedly the impugned judgment having passed on 27.01.2022 which is much after passing of the judgment in Rajnesh (supra) on 04.11.2020 and the concerned Court dealing with the matters like this in India, has been directed to follow certain guidelines by the dictum of the Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra), but the learned trial Court having failed to take note of such guidelines and the parties having admittedly not filed any disclosure affidavit in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the only course left upon to this Court is to remit the matter back for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 6. It is accordingly, directed that the learned trial Court shall receive the disclosure affidavit to be filed by both the parties as undertaken before this Court and proceeds with the matter by taking fresh evidence if required on the limited issue concerning the disclosure affidavits and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months of the appearance of both the parties before the learned trial Court. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the present RPFAM No.44 of 2024 & RPFAM No. 33 of 2022 stand disposed of by setting aside the impugned judgment. A copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court for compliance. (G. Satapathy) Judge S.Sasmal Designation: Jr. Stenographer