JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. - MATA No. 70 of 2010 has been filed by the wife and minor daughter challenging the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No. 463 of 2003, dismissing the application filed by them under Sections 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. 2. MATA No. 73 of 2010 has been filed by the husband challenging the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No. 362 of 2005 filed by the minor son under Section 125, Cr.P.C. granting maintenance to him. 3. MATA No. 93 of 2010 has been filed by the wife challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in C.P. No. 100 of 2005 filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the plea of adultery. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack while disposing of the aforesaid three proceedings by a common judgment allowed C.P. No.100 of 2005 on contest against the wife and ex parte against one Tapan Swain, against whom the plea of adultery has been taken by the husband. While granting decree of divorce, the Court below directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the wife and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - to the minor son, as lump sum maintenance with a direction to keep the aforesaid Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of minor son in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of five years and he (the minor) is entitled to draw monthly interest out of the amount regularly. So far as grant of maintenance to minor daughter is concerned, the same was dismissed. 5. The facts as revealed from the record are as follows: The marriage between Brundaban-appellant and Nalini-respondent took place on 15.7.1999 as per Hindu law, custom and rites. Thereafter, both of them lived as husband and wife for some years. Out of their wedlock, a daughter, namely Reemita was born. The respondent was in the family way and was expected to deliver a child in September, 2003. Appellant being a Constable of Police was at Buxibazar, Cuttack. In course of time dissension erupted between the couple for demand of dowry by the husband and in-laws. It is alleged that when their marriage was about to settle, appellant was given Rs. The respondent was in the family way and was expected to deliver a child in September, 2003. Appellant being a Constable of Police was at Buxibazar, Cuttack. In course of time dissension erupted between the couple for demand of dowry by the husband and in-laws. It is alleged that when their marriage was about to settle, appellant was given Rs. 1,00,000/- for business purpose and with the said money he purchased a land in his name, which amount was obtained by respondent's father by way of loan from. State Bank of India, Bidyadharpur Branch by mortgaging his immovable property, in which appellant was the guarantor. After marriage, both the couple resided together. It is alleged that when further demand of dowry made by appellant and his family members was not fulfilled, respondent was tortured mentally and physically time and again. Thereafter, on 23.1.2003 as per conspiracy of appellant's family members respondent was forcibly driven out from the matrimonial house. Since then she and her children are residing with her parents. Respondent being a cardiac patient is undergoing treatment regularly. It is therefore contended that the respondent and her children have no independent source of income for their sustenance and appellant has neglected to maintain them having a sufficient means. The wife has taken a plea that there was relationship between them prior to marriage. The father of respondent-wife had given Rs. 1,00,000/- to the husband for business purpose taking loan from State Bank of India in which the husband was a guarantor. However, the appellant utilized the said money towards purchase of a piece of land in his name. Even after marriage, the wife was continuously residing at Buxibazar, Cuttack Town, the in-laws demanded more dowry and due to non-fulfillment of such dowry, she was been forcibly driven out on 23.1.2003 and from that date she with her children is residing in her father's house. She admitted that she is a cardiac patient and is undergoing regular treatment. As she has no independent source of income to maintain herself and the children, she is entitled to get maintenance for herself and the children. She also stated that the husband has some landed property and earns much income from business also. As such the wife and the children are entitled to get maintenance. 6. The husband-appellant is working as a constable of police. She also stated that the husband has some landed property and earns much income from business also. As such the wife and the children are entitled to get maintenance. 6. The husband-appellant is working as a constable of police. He has taken a plea that after two months of marriage, wife left the matrimonial house and is residing at Khandola i.e. at her father's house. While the wife residing at her parents house, he noticed regarding the adulterous life the wife on 10.10.2002. He protested and the said matter was compromised. In spite of such compromise, wife did not return to the matrimonial home and continue her life as before. The female child, namely, Reemita was born just three months after the marriage. As such she was not born out of the wedlock. Accordingly, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from him. As he was treated by the wife in a cruel manner, it was not possible to lead a peaceful conjugal life with her and apprehending danger to his life, he is entitled to decree of divorce. He also disowned the parent-ship of the son, as wife has left the matrimonial home two months after the marriage. On the above pleadings, the parties have adduced their respective evidence. 7. On analyzing the facts and evidence on records the Court below recorded the following findings. The marriage between the parties is not in dispute. Exts. 1 and 2 are the birth certificates of the daughter and son respectively, from which it reveal that Brundaban is the father of the children. Thus, from the birth certificate issued by the Government of Orissa in the Department of Health & Family Welfare, the date of birth of the daughter was on 9th November, 1999. Since marriage was solemnized on 15th July, 1999 and the daughter was born four months after the marriage, the said child could not have been born through Brundaban the appellant. The Court below also disbelieved the relationship of husband and wife prior to marriage, as the same was not pleaded in the petition filed by the wife and daughter for maintenance. The adulterous life of the wife has not been established convincingly by the husband. The wife has deserted the husband and husband has not maintained the wife since 23rd January, 2003 till date. The adulterous life of the wife has not been established convincingly by the husband. The wife has deserted the husband and husband has not maintained the wife since 23rd January, 2003 till date. As the wife has deserted the husband for a continuous period of two years preceding the date of presentation of petition for divorce, the application for divorce was allowed and the wife is entitled to permanent alimony. Taking into consideration the income of the husband, the Court below has fixed the quantum of maintenance as aforesaid. The minor son was born on 15th November, 2003. Therefore, he is entitled to maintenance. 8. Learned counsel for the wife submitted that the Court below has not taken into consideration the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties on record and on an erroneous approach of law and facts rejected the claim of maintenance of the minor daughter and passed the decree of divorce. Accordingly, the wife has filed both the appeals and challenging the said judgment and decree. On the other hand, learned counsel for the husband supported the judgment and decree passed and submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below in Criminal Proceeding No. 362 of 2005 granting maintenance to the son is illegal as the legitimacy of the child is in dispute. He further submitted that the amount of permanent alimony as awarded to the wife may be reduced. 9. Hence, in these appeals, it is to be determined whether both the children are belonging to the appellant-husband and he, being the father, is liable to maintain them? 10. The husband has not proved the plea of adultery by adducing cogent evidence. Therefore, rightly the Court below rejected the said plea taken by the husband. The relationship between the parties prior to marriage was not disputed by the husband even though same was not pleaded and he stood guarantor to the loan obtained by her father. Marriage was in the month of July, 1999 and the daughter was born on 9.11.1999. The husband has not raised any question about the said child till filing of the present proceeding in the year 2005. He has accepted the child as his own child. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the appellant husband is the father of the said child. The husband has not raised any question about the said child till filing of the present proceeding in the year 2005. He has accepted the child as his own child. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the appellant husband is the father of the said child. Hence, the finding of the Court below that the daughter born after four month's of the marriage is not entitled to get maintenance, is set aside. Accordingly MATA No. 70 of 2010 filed by the daughter for maintenance is allowed. 11. Admittedly, the wife was with the husband till 23rd January, 2003 at Buxibazar, Cuttack-1 in the official Govt. quarters of the husband. Hence, the burden was with husband to prove that the son is the illegitimate son, which he could not. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. So far as desertion is concerned, from the evidence of the parties, it appears that at no point of time wife has disclosed her intention that she is permanently left the matrimonial house with an intention not to return back, rather, she came back the matrimonial house on 23rd January, 2003. She was forcibly driven out. Law is well settled that in its essence desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent and without reasonable cause. The inference of desertion has to be made on a balance of probabilities. The burden of proving desertion "factum" as well as the "animus desirendi" is on the petitioner; and he or she has to establish beyond reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of the Court, the desertion through out was without just cause. In other words, even if the wife, whether she is the deserting spouse, does not prove just cause for her living apart, the husband has still to satisfy the Court that the desertion was without cause (See AIR 1964 SC 40 :Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena alias Mota). In the present case, the wife is residing at her parents house and she is a cardiac patient and under treatment. The husband accepted the same and has not taken any steps to bring her back and provided treatment. Hence, wife residing at her parents house will not amount to cruelty. In the present case, the wife is residing at her parents house and she is a cardiac patient and under treatment. The husband accepted the same and has not taken any steps to bring her back and provided treatment. Hence, wife residing at her parents house will not amount to cruelty. However, the Court below, without considering the conduct of the husband, who did not take any step to bring back the wife to the matrimonial home, came to an abrupt conclusion that the wife has deserted the husband for a period of two years preceding to the filing of petition for divorce. From records, it appears that the relationship between the parties has been irretrievably broken down and they are residing separately since more than ten years. There is no chance of reunion between them because of allegation and counter allegation and pendency of so many proceedings between them. The wife has not claimed for enhancement of the quantum of permanent alimony rather during pendency of the appeal, she has withdrawn the permanent alimony awarded by Family Court without any objection. 12. Considering the above, MATA No. 93 of 2010 filed by the wife is allowed in part. We confirm the decree of divorce passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on the findings stated in the above paragraphs and in MATA 70 of 2010 direct the father to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) to the daughter, namely, Reemita Samal towards her maintenance and marriage and the said amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank in her name and she is entitled to interest thereof and the fixed deposit amount shall be utilized for her marriage or for her higher study on prior application filed before the Family Court. Accordingly, MATA No. 73 of 2010 filed by the husband challenging permanent alimony to the son has no merit, and the same is dismissed. Dr. B.R.SARANGI, J.: I agree. Ordered accordingly.