W.P. (C) No.4501 of 2026 Page 1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 4501 of 2026 Priyadarshini Amrita Panda … ... Petitioner -Versus- Biswajit Pati ... … Opp. Party Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr. Basudev Pujari, Advocate and Petitioner in person For Opp. Party: Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate Ms. B. Pati, Advocate Mr. S. Paltasingh, Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO J U D G M E N T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Decided on: 12th February, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J. 1. The petition has been filed with the following prayer: “The petitioner, therefore, prays that the Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to consider the facts stated above, admit the petition, issue notice to the Opp. Party to show cause, call for the L.C.R. And After hearing the Counsel for the parties, allow the petition with cost; W.P. (C) No.4501 of 2026 Page 2 of 8 And Issue appropriate nature of writ quashing the impugned orders under Annexures-2 and 4.” 2. Annexure-2 of the petition is the order dated 12.03.2025 reproduced herein: “The case record is put up today on the strength of a petition filed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, The petitioner filed an affidavit along with photocopy of deposit/Pay in slip, photocopy of Bank Cheque, account statement dated 10.03.2025, 11.01.2025 & 11.02.2025 to 12.02.2025 and email containing transfer of Rs.13,00,000/- to the account of the respondent. The said petition along with the documents are kept in the case record.” 3. The Annexure-4 under challenge is order dated 19.01.2026, reproduced herein: “Learned Counsel of the petitioner files hazira and present in the court. Counsel for the petitioner submitted to call for the original record. Heard. Perused the case record. The petitioner has filed this case to recall the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in CP No.488/2018. The petitioner has complied the order of this court passed in the judgment & decree dated 22.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 respectively. It is a reflection of the contents of memo filed by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner in CP No.488 of 2018. No specific order has been passed against any party after the completion of trial. So there is no need to file any CMA to set aside the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in CP No.488 of 2018. Hence filing this CMA stands rejected before admission.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the petitioner in person being present were heard extensively. W.P. (C) No.4501 of 2026 Page 3 of 8 5. To challenge the order as at order dated 12.03.2025, it is contended that the order was passed behind back of the defendant in the disposed of Civil Proceeding No.488 of 2018 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. However, it is not disputed that the C.P. was disposed of earlier by judgment dated 22.02.2025. The portion relevant for adjudication of the present matter of the judgment dated 22.02.2025 in C.P. No.488 of 2018 is reproduced herein from the photocopy as produced by the learned instructing counsel appearing for the opposite party. “The Civil Proceeding is partly allowed on contest against the respondent, but without any cost. The marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 30.06.2017 is hereby dissolved by way of a decree of divorce. The claim for return of gold ornaments and interim maintenance stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- (rupees thirteen lakhs only) to the wife-respondent towards her permanent alimony within ninety two days of decree, failing which the respondent-wife is at liberty to realize the same by resorting proper course of law.” 6. The petition filed before the learned trial court, CMA No.128 of 2025 was filed challenging the deposit of decretal dues as well as seeking recall of order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the learned Court in C.P. No.488 of 2018. Relevant paragraphs those require consideration by this Court are reproduced herein: “1.That, it has come to the notice of the present petitioner (Respondent in C.P. No.488/2018) that on W.P. (C) No.4501 of 2026 Page 4 of 8 12.03.2025 the following order has been passed in C.P. No.488/2018 by this Hon’ble Court: “The case record is put up today on the strength of a petition filed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner filed an affidavit along with photocopy of deposit/pay in slip, photocopy of Bank cheque, account statement dated 10.03.2025, 11.01.2025, 11.02.2025 to 12.02.2025 and email containing transfer of Rs.13,00,000/- to the account of the respondent. The said petition alongwith the documents are kept in the case record.” 2. That, the above said order has been passed behind the back of the present petitioner (wife- respondent). Neither the copy of the alleged petition was served on the present petition (wife-respondent) nor on her counsel nor notice of such petition had been served on any of them by the Court. 3. That after passing of the judgment and decree the Court becomes functus officio and so such an order as has been passed on 12.03.2025 could not have been passed. 4. That there is no provision in law for passing such an order. 5. That the factum of such recording came to the present petitioner’s knowledge when the present respondent husband mentioned it in response to D.V. Execution Case No.141/2025 filed by the wife. 6. That the recording has been made which is against the principle of natural justice as it has been done without hearing the present petitioner-wife. 7. That it is necessary to submit that on 21.02.2025 the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa has passed an order in Crl. Rev. No.738 of 2024 directed the husband to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.35,000/- per month alongwith arrears from the date of application i.e. 28.2.2029. A copy of the order dt.21.2.2025 is submitted herewith. 8. That this petitioner-wife is not making a comment at this stage on the alleged petition referred to in the W.P. (C) No.4501 of 2026 Page 5 of 8 order dt. 12.03.2025 because this petition is filed for recalling the order dt. 12.03.2025 as passing such order is under challenge. 9. That the petitioner-wife reserves the right to make further submission, if need be.” 7. The Order XXI of the C.P.C. deals with execution of decrees and orders. The said provision assumes importance in addressing the issue raised in the writ application and is reproduced herein: “ORDER XXI EXECUTION OF DECREES AND ORDERS Payment under decree [1.Modes of paying money under decree. – (1) All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely :- (a) By deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that Court by postal money order or through a bank; or (b) Out of Court, to the decree-holder by postal money order or through a bank, or by any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing; or (c) Otherwise, as the Court, which made the decree, directs. (2) Where any payment is made under clause(a) or clause (c) of sub-rule(1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post, acknowledgment due. xxx xxx xxx (4) On any amount paid under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule(1), interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of service of the notice referred to in sub-rule (2). (5) On any amount paid under clause(b) of sub- rule (1), interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of such payment: Provided that, where the decree-holder refuses to accept the postal money order or payment W.P. (C) No.4501 of 2026 Page 6 of 8 through a bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money was tendered to him, or where he avoids acceptance of the postal money order or payment through bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money would have been tendered to him in the ordinary course of business of the postal authorities or the bank, as the case may be.]” 8. It is apparent from the averments made in the petition that the present petitioner who was the defendant before the learned Family Court and also the decree holder has not disputed the fact as observed in the order dated 12.03.2025 that the pay slip, photocopy of Bank Cheque, account statement dated 10.03.2025, 11.01.2025 & 11.02.2025 to 12.02.2025 and email containing transfer of Rs.13,00,000/- to the account of the respondent. 9. The only plea taken before the learned trial Court is that the judgment debtor-petitioner in the C.P. as far as payment of alimony is concerned has not served copy of the petition on the other side. Reading of Order XXI as quoted above makes it amply clear that there is no such mandate to serve copy after disposal of the proceeding. Rather Order XXI rule 1(2) makes it amply clear that where any payment is made under clause (a), the judgment debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post. The notice therefore has to be post facto i.e. after deposit is made. 10. In considered view of this Court, the learned Judge, Family Court being the executing court does not have an W.P. (C) No.4501 of 2026 Page 7 of 8 option for refusing to accept payment of proof of money as indicated in its order dated 12.03.2025. Therefore, the order is just and proper in accordance with the provision of C.P.C. particularly Order 21 that provides for execution of decrees and orders. 11. The petitioner herself being present in person was also asked whether she disputes the Bank transactions, bank receipts, cheque and she is apparently reluctant to give any answer. However, she responds on being repeatedly asked submits that she does not dispute the said bank transactions or the receipts. 12. Apparently, it can be seen that the petitioner-decree holder had never disputed the said transaction or the receipts before the learned trial court while filing the application CMA No.128 of 2025. A plea is taken before the learned trial court as reproduced above in paragraph-8 “that the petitioner-wife is not making a comment at this stage. …” Regarding deposit of the amount before the learned Judge, Family Court in the disposed of C.P. No.488 of 2018 a new plea has been taken in paragraph-14 of the present writ petition, which is reproduced herein: “14. That the wife immediately on being served a copy of the petition in the D.V. Execution Case No.141/2025, filed her objection on 30.06.2025 stating that Rs.13,00,000/- had been paid towards arrear interim maintenance. No amount had been paid towards alimony. Necessary documents were submitted in support thereof.” W.P. (C) No.4501 of 2026 Page 8 of 8 13. Upon going through paragraph-14 of the writ petition it has to be held that nothing turns on the averments made in paragraph-14 inasmuch as paragraph-14 refers to D.V. Execution Case No.141/2025 which arises out of D.V. Case not the C.P. No.488 of 2018 disposed of on 12.03.2025. It was and is open to the petitioner decree holder to proceed for execution of the decree and assert before the executing court and prove that the judgment debtor is yet to satisfy the decree. 14. At this stage, the petitioner being present in Court herself through her learned counsel files memo for withdrawal of the present writ application. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to be kept on records in CP No.488 of 2018. (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 12th February, 2026/Radha/Gs