Signed By: Narayan Ho vs Diptimayee Mohanty @
2026 Latest Caselaw 11 Ori

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 11 Ori
Judgement Date : 5 January, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Signed By: Narayan Ho vs Diptimayee Mohanty @ on 5 January, 2026

Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

Signature Not Verified
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Digitally Signed                          MATA No. 148 of 2025
Signed by: NARAYAN HO
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC            Nigamananda Pattnaik              ....                         Appellant
Date: 06-Jan-2026 10:40:34
                                                                       Represented by Adv.-
                                                                 Mr. B. Mohapatra, Advocate
                                                      -Versus-
                         Diptimayee Mohanty @                      ....            Respondent
                         Sudhansubala Pattnaik
                                                                        Represented by Adv._
                                             CORAM:
                           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
                                              AND
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
                                                       ORDER

   Order No.                                          05.01.2026
                                                    (Hybrid mode)
      01.                 1.     The appellant-husband is before this Court challenging in part

the judgment and decree dated 3rd February, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No.231 of 2021. The appellant was the petitioner in the proceeding and has himself obtained the decree of divorce by filing the petition under Section-13(1) (i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The appellant has adjournment to provide instruction to secure the decree as far as payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/- is concerned. Pendency of this appeal shall not be a Bar for the learned Court to proceed in execution if any filed by the respondent-wife.

3. As prayed for further two weeks' time be granted for learned counsel for the appellant.

4. List after two weeks. Liberty to mention.

(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Narayan/Ranjeeta