Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is a defendant’s appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1984”) arisen from judgment and order dated 3.2.2010 passed by Sri S.D. Paliwal, Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Original Suit No. 274 of 2006.

2. Plaintiff-respondent filed Matrimonial Suit No. 274 of 2006 under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1955”) stating that marriage was solemnized between parties on 21.6.1999 according to Hindu rituals at Jhansi. Two daughters were born out of wedlock. One, Km. Ayushi on 10.5.2000 and another Km. Aditi on 10.5.2002. Husband is working in Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd., Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the “BHEL”) since 1997. Character of defendant-appellant even before marriage was not chaste and no change came after marriage also. On 20.5.2003 when plaintiff-husband had gone to attend his duties, he came back for some essential work to his house from factory and found that a motorcycle No. UP 93 F 8815 was standing in front of his house. When plaintiff entered the house, found a person in objectionable/compromising position with defendant-appellant. Said person immediately attempted to ran away but plaintiff shouted and neighbors also collected, as a result whereof he was caught. On inquiry he told his name as Vishal Srivastava son of Sri Jagdish Prasad Srivastava. He said that he has relations with defendant-appellant since before marriage and even thereafter and has high political resources. In the meantime somebody informed Police who came and took away Vishal Srivastava to police station. When plaintiff went to Police Chowki, BHEL, his report was not lodged. He also found that Vishal Srivastava was already allowed to go.

3. Thereafter an application was submitted by plaintiff on 23.5.2003 before Deputy Inspector General of Police but even then report was not lodged. Then a complaint case under Section 497, 506 IPC and 3(1)10 S.C. and S.T. Act was filed in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) against Vishal Srivastava. After filing of aforesaid complaint defendant-appellant and his family members threatened plaintiff to withdraw complaint else they will implicate him in false cases of dowry etc. Plaintiff did not surrender to their threats. Subsequently, defendant-appellant lodged a report under Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act on 20.4.2004 at Woman Police Station, Jhansi and also filed a maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Family Judge, Jhansi on 15.6.2004. Plaintiff sought to persuade defendant-appellant stating that she had two daughters, therefore, should improve upon herself but she did not understand the things and said that she has relations with Vishal Srivastava and would continue to maintain same. She also asked plaintiff-appellant to accept the situation as it is, else, he will be implicated in serious criminal cases of dowry etc. It is in these circumstances, plaintiff, having no option, since it is almost impossible to live with defendant-appellant as husband and wife, hence filed the suit for divorce.

4. When aforesaid suit was pending defendant-appellant filed an application under Section 24 of Act, 1955 claiming maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month for herself and two minor daughters.

5. It was contested by plaintiff-respondent stating that defendant-appellant is running a private computer coaching at her residence and earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month. Besides, she is also getting maintenance of Rs. 2200/- per month pursuant to order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which plaintiff-respondent is regularly paying. On the contrary plaintiff-respondent has to maintain himself and his old mother, therefore, there is no justification to allow any further maintenance to defendant-appellant.

6. Defendant-appellant also contested divorce suit by denying, in general, all allegations contained in p