JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — All the three appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack dated 22.3.2010 in Civil Proceeding No.150 of 2003 and Civil Proceeding No.500 of 2005. 2.The parties to the proceeding are related to each other as husband and wife. Pravas Kumar Chinara is the husband and had filed C.P. No.150 of 2003 in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Sasmita Sahoo, the wife had filed C.S. No.196/03/74/04 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming maintenance and subsequently it was transferred to the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack and was renumbered as C.P. No.500 of 2005. Both the Civil Proceedings were taken up together by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack and were disposed of in a common judgment impugned in all the three appeals. 3.The husband, Pravas Kumar Chinara had filed the suit on the following facts and grounds. He married Sasmita Sahoo on 3.2.1999 as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, they stayed at Bidanasi till 25.2.1999 in the town of Cuttack and, thereafter he left to his place of service but was coming to his house at Bidanasi once in a month to see his wife Sasmita and other family members. It is alleged by him that in the very first night after marriage Sasmita expressed her dislike for him on the ground of low financial status and she asked him to live separately from his family before consummating the marriage. She went to her parents house eight days after the marriage and when she returned back, her behaviour had completely changed towards him and she also subjected him to cruelty. In the first week of September, 1999 he took her to his official accommodation in his service place and she stayed there till November, 1999. In November, 1999 when she came to his house, she started ill-treating his family members. On 17.1.2000 she went to her parents house and started threatening that she would put him and his family members in jail unless he gets separated from his parents. Meanwhile, a criminal case was started at the instance of her father against him and his family members. On 17.1.2000 she went to her parents house and started threatening that she would put him and his family members in jail unless he gets separated from his parents. Meanwhile, a criminal case was started at the instance of her father against him and his family members. Therefore, he had no other option except filing the suit on the ground of desertion and cruelty. 4.The wife, Sasmita Sahoo had filed a written statement stating therein that at the time of marriage, there was a demand of cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, refrigerator and washing machine etc. After marriage, she stayed with her husband from 4.2.1999 to 25.2.1999 and during that period, she was tortured by her husband and in-laws for not bringing dowry. In view of such conduct, her father gave Rs.35,000/- to her father-in-law on 25.2.1999. She further alleged that she was subjected to torture, was not allowed food and she was also not allowed to contact her parents over telephone. In September, 1999 her husband took her to his place of service in Chattisgarh and they stayed together till November, 1999. During their stay at Chattisgarh, she was tortured and assaulted on several occasions by her husband. After she came back to Cuttack in November, 1999 she was again subjected to torture and only on 17.1.2000 her brother-in-law, namely, Prakash and Manmath brought her in a taxi from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar and left her at Master Canteen Chhak and went back to Cuttack. From 17.1.2000 she is residing with her father at Bhubaneswar. Her father not being financially sound is not able to maintain her and, therefore she had filed C.P. No.500 of 2005 under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 demanding payment of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. In both the proceedings, two witnesses were examined on behalf of husband-Pravas Kumar Chinara and three witnesses were examined on behalf of wife-Sasmita Sahoo. 5.Learned Judge, Family Court on analysis of the entire evidence came to a conclusion that Sasmita Sahoo was guilty of desertion thereby exposing her husband-Pravas Kumar Chinara to cruelty and harassment. The Court further observed that Sasmita had expressed her unwillingness to join the marital life with her husband. On these findings, the learned Judge, Family Court allowed the Civil Proceeding No.150 of 2003 directing dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The Court further observed that Sasmita had expressed her unwillingness to join the marital life with her husband. On these findings, the learned Judge, Family Court allowed the Civil Proceeding No.150 of 2003 directing dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. So far as Civil Proceeding No.500 of 2005 is concerned, the learned Judge, Family Court also allowed permanent alimony of Rs.6,00,000/- to be paid by husband-Pravas Kumar Chinara to Sasmita Sahoo. 6.At the time of hearing of all the three appeals, Shri B.K. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for wife-Sasmita contended that in course of proceeding, though Sasmita had filed a written statement and was contesting the suit, because of certain wild allegations made, she agreed for divorce and, therefore, there was no reason for the learned Judge, Family Court to make certain observations against her while passing a decree for divorce. Accordingly, Shri Nanda, learned counsel appearing for Sasmita prayed for expunging of those findings. So far as quantum of permanent alimony is concerned, it was also contended by Shri Nanda, learned counsel that considering the salary drawn by the husband-Pravas and the age of the parties, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) would be just and proper. Accordingly a prayer was also made on behalf of Sasmita to enhance the permanent alimony granted by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the husband-Pravas Kumar Chinara challenged the quantum of permanent alimony granted by the learned Judge, Family Court on the ground that considering the income of the husband-Pravas, permanent alimony of Rs.6,00,000/- is beyond the reach of Pravas. 7.So far as first contention of Shri Nanda is concerned, we find nothing in the judgment to show that at any point of time the learned counsel appearing for Sasmita before the learned Judge Family Court had ever agreed for a divorce. On the other hand, she filed a written statement, contested the proceeding by examining witnesses and, accordingly on the basis of the evidence adduced, learned Judge, Family Court rendered findings against her. Sasmita has been found guilty of desertion and in this connection, we carefully examined the evidence adduced on behalf of both parties. Husband-Pravas had examined himself as P.W.1 and his evidence with regard to desertion is supported by P.W.2 and it is also admitted by Sasmita Sahoo that since 17.1.2000 she was living separately from Pravas. Sasmita has been found guilty of desertion and in this connection, we carefully examined the evidence adduced on behalf of both parties. Husband-Pravas had examined himself as P.W.1 and his evidence with regard to desertion is supported by P.W.2 and it is also admitted by Sasmita Sahoo that since 17.1.2000 she was living separately from Pravas. Therefore, by the time, Civil Proceeding No.105 of 2003 was filed by husband-Pravas for dissolution of marriage, the statutory period of desertion had already been completed. The question as to whether on 17.1.2000, Sasmita left the matrimonial house on her own or she was left at Master Canteen Chhaka by two relatives of Pravas has been answered by the learned Judge, Family Court by holding that it is Sasmita, who left the matrimonial house on 17.1.2000 on her own. After perusal of the evidence, we find no reason to take a different view. Therefore, finding of desertion being supported by evidence, there is no scope to interfere with the decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court for divorce. 8.So far as quantum of permanent alimony is concerned, we find that the salary bill of Pravas for the month of January, 2010 has been proved and marked as Exhibit-10. The said Salary Certificate shows that the gross income of Pravas was Rs. 24,400/= and after deductions, his net pay was Rs.9,827/-. We have verified Exhibit-10 and found that almost 1/3rd of the gross income is being deducted towards a loan. On consideration of the same, if we take the net income of Pravas even at Rs.11,000 to 12,000/- per month, permanent alimony can only be to the extent of Rs.7,00,000/-. Parties to the proceeding are young and their is scope of second marriage. On consideration of the above, we are of the view that permanent alimony of Rs.7,00,000/- (Seven lakhs) would be just and proper. 9.We accordingly dispose of all the three appeals by modifying the impugned judgment to the extent that in stead of permanent alimony of Rs.6,00,000/- (Six lakhs), the husband-Pravas Kumar Chinara shall pay permanent alimony of Rs.7,00,000/- (Seven lakh). The finding arrived at by the trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and the rest part of the judgment and decree shall remain unaltered. C.R. DASH, J.I agree. Appeals disposed of.