JUDGMENT : The appellant in this appeal has called in question, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi in Misc. Appeal No. 03 of 2002 allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parlakhemundi in dismissing the suit i.e. O.S. No. 31 of 2000 filed by the respondent as the plaintiff for grant of decree of divorce. Therefore, the unsuccessful defendant is before this Court with this second appeal. 2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law : Whether the finding of the first appellate court that the appellant-wife deserted the respondent without reasonable cause is perverse and against the material on record? 3. It is worthwhile to mention here that the respondent had earlier filed the suit i.e. O.S. No. 11 of 1999 for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and that was not contested. The decree to that effect being passed, the same has remained simply on the paper. It is submitted at the Bar that the parties have been residing separately at different locations and by now they are in litigating terms for more than 16 years. The desertion on the part of the appellant has been the sole ground for grant of decree of divorce as prayed for. The lower appellate court in the facts and circumstances of the case has gone to critically examine each of the conclusion arrived at by the trial court upon the discussion of evidence and it has negated those by assigning reasons and accordingly providing justification for such difference. The lower appellate court appears to have made meticulous examination of evidence and that too independently. It has been found out that the parties are residing separately only after enjoying marital life for a short period. It is also submitted at the Bar that there is absolutely no chance of reunion and several sincere attempts have gone in vain. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the daughter of the appellant who is nearing the marriageable age and has crossed 18 years is staying with the appellant who is taking her care. It is his submission that the lower appellate court has erred in law to the effect that even when he has granted the decree for divorce, no such order as regards permanent alimony has been passed. It is his submission that the lower appellate court has erred in law to the effect that even when he has granted the decree for divorce, no such order as regards permanent alimony has been passed. It is fairly submitted at the Bar that the respondent is working as a Lecturer in a private college and presently getting salary of about Rs.10,000/-per month. Besides the same, he has also the interest over his ancestral property. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out anything for arriving at a different conclusion than that of the lower appellate court as regards desertion in passing the decree of divorce. It is not shown that for the purpose either some extraneous evidence have been taken into consideration or some inadmissible evidence have weighed in the mind. It is also not placed that the lower appellate court while going for elaborate discussion of evidence has omitted to bestow its attention upon any material evidence available on record which if would have been taken into consideration, the finding might have gone to the contrary. This Court also on careful examination finds no such perversity in the finding of the first appellate court on the factum of desertion. The said finding of the first appellate court thus receives affirmation. 5. Coming to address the submission as regards grant of permanent alimony to the appellant and her daughter, it is found that the same has got the force. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that it is an inadvertent mistake. However, both the counsel urge that the said permanent alimony be settled here in this appeal instead of driving the parties again to the lower forum. Considering the submission made at the Bar which appears to be fair and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby held that grant of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-(six lakhs) as permanent alimony to the appellant and her daughter would be just and proper and that this Court feels inclined to award which the lower appellate court has filed to do. In view of further submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, it is also directed that the respondent would be paying the above sum as permanent alimony in two equal installments, one by the end of June, 2016 and other one by the end of December, 2016 by depositing the same in the trial court. In that event, on each occasion, fifty percentum of it would be kept in unencumberable fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank in the name of the appellant for a period of seven years with monthly interest payable and rest fifty percentum would be kept in the name of the daughter of the appellant for a period of five years. It is needless to mention that the appellant and her daughter would be at liberty to move the trial court for premature withdrawal of said deposits or to encumber those in any other way in case such contingency so arises and in that event the trial court would do well to pass necessary order as per law arriving at such satisfaction as the case may be. 6. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part as above. However, there would be no order as to cost.