JUDGMENT : Chandra Prakash, J. This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9-5-1966 of Sri P.N. Misra, Second Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh modifying the decree of the trial court. 2. Plaintiff-Appellant was married to the Defendant-Respondent more than 10 or 12 years before the suit. The suit giving rise to the second appeal was instituted by the Plaintiff against the Defendant-Respondent for the dissolution of her marriage and the recovery of Rs. 101/- as her dower debt on the allegations that at the time of her marriage with the Defendant her dower debt was fixed at Rs. 101/-. Four children were born to the Plaintiff-Appellant from the Defendant-Respondent, out of them two were alive. It was alleged that the Defendant was a man of bad temperament and character and used to beat the Plaintiff. Shortly after the Plaintiff gave birth to her last child, the Defendant mercilessly beat her and turned her out. Plaintiff went away to her father along with her children. It was alleged that the Defendant has failed to maintain the Plaintiff and her children for 3 years preceding the suit. It was also pleaded that the Defendant has married one Shrimati Hasina and notwithstanding the request of the Plaintiff the defendant has failed to maintain her. On the above allegations the Plaintiff wanted the dissolution of her marriage and the recovery of Rs. 101/- as dower debt. 3. Defendant-Respondent resisted the claim of the Plaintiff that the dower debt of the Plaintiff was only Rs. 35/-. It was alleged that the Plaintiff lived peacefully with the Defendant for 13 or 14 years. It was further pleaded that the brother and father of the Plaintiff came to the house of the Defendant during the latter's absence and took away the Plaintiff and her children with them together with her ornaments and the cash. Defendant lodged a complaint u/s 498 Code of Criminal Procedure also. It was also pleaded that the Defendant got his criminal case dismissed at the instance of the Plaintiff's father on the promise to send the Plaintiff back; that the Defendant was never guilty of any cruelty of conduct with the Plaintiff. It was also alleged that the Plaintiff was of bad character and had developed illicit connection with one Jamil. 4. It was also alleged that the Plaintiff was of bad character and had developed illicit connection with one Jamil. 4. The trial court framed 3 issues in the case and after discussing the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that Defendant was not guilty of any cruelty of conduct towards the Plaintiff and did not ever beat her or turn her out. He also held that the Plaintiff had been living with her father for the preceding three years and since the Defendant has failed to pay any maintenance to the Plaintiff or her children, the Plaintiff was entitled to get her marriage dissolved. He also held that the dower debt of the Plaintiff was Rs. 101/-. On the above findings the trial court decreed the Plaintiff's suit for the dissolution of marriage and recovery of Rs. 101/- as dower debt. Against the above decree the Defendant filed an appeal in the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court after perusing the entire evidence on record concurred with the findings of the trial court that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Defendant turned her out or beat her or treated her with cruelty. He further held that it was correct to say that the Plaintiff was residing with her father for the last preceding 3 years. It was also held that the Defendant was not responsible for the Plaintiff's stay at her father's house and, therefore, the Plaintiff was not entitled to any dissolution of marriage. He also held that dower debt of the Plaintiff was only Rs. 35/-. The lower appellate court, therefore, set aside the decree of the trial court so far as the dissolution of the marriage was concerned and modified the decree for the recovery of dower debt for Rs. 101/- to Rs. 35/-. Feeling aggrieved, the Plaintiff has come up in appeal before me. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. I am afraid that that the order of the court below cannot be disturbed. The Plaintiff sought her divorce on the following grounds: (i) That the Defendant was a man of bad temperament and character and habitually assaulted the Plaintiff. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. I am afraid that that the order of the court below cannot be disturbed. The Plaintiff sought her divorce on the following grounds: (i) That the Defendant was a man of bad temperament and character and habitually assaulted the Plaintiff. (ii) That the Defendant failed to provide to the Plaintiff and her children maintenance for the period of 3 years; (iii) That the Defendant had married Shrimati Hasina; and (iv) That the life of the Plaintiff will be in peril if she resided with the Defendant. Both the trial court and the court below have decided points 1 and 4 against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant-Respondent. On point No. 3 it has been held that notwithstanding Defendant's marriage with Shrimati Hasina no divorce can be granted to the Plaintiff for it has not been established that the Defendant had been guilty of differential treatment to the Plaintiff and Shrimati Hasina. On the second point the concurrent finding of the two courts below is that the Plaintiff and her children were residing with her father for the three years preceding the suit. u/s 2(ii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, a woman married under the Muslim law is entitled to a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on the ground that the husband has neglected or has failed to provide for her maintenance for the period of two years. It has been consistently held by the courts below that the Defendant never turned out the Plaintiff nor was he guilty of any cruelty of conduct with her. It follows that the Plaintiff was residing with her father voluntarily without any prejudicial act either of commission or of omission on the part of the Defendant-Respondent. The Defendant does not disown that the Plaintiff is residing with her father but he has not forced her to go away from his house. Defendant-Respondent does not say that he will not maintain the Plaintiff or her children, at his house. Plaintiff is certainly entitled to get maintenance by living at the Defendant's house and by submitting herself to him. The Defendant cannot be forced to provide any maintenance to the Plaintiff by allowing the Plaintiff to reside at her father's house against his will. Plaintiff is certainly entitled to get maintenance by living at the Defendant's house and by submitting herself to him. The Defendant cannot be forced to provide any maintenance to the Plaintiff by allowing the Plaintiff to reside at her father's house against his will. I was not referred to any authority to show that divorce can be granted to the Plaintiff in such circumstances. 6. It was next contended that in the written statement Defendant charged the Plaintiff with a bad character and this ground is enough to entitle the Plaintiff to get a divorce. The allegations in the plaint for claiming divorce were on the basis of events preceding the filing of the plaint. If the Plaintiff acquires any further right to claim dissolution on the basis of written statement filed by the Defendant-Respondent, the cause of action for that arises after the filing of the written statement and the decree in the present suit has to be granted on the events alleged in the plaint. Further, no doubt, the Defendant Respondent alleged in his written statement that the Plaintiff was carrying on (illicit connection) with one Jamil but he has given no evidence in support of that allegation and this amounts to an withdrawal of his charge. In any event, no decree of divorce can be granted on the allegations made in the written statement and I was not referred to any authority for such a proposition. My attention was drawn to the rulings reported in: A. Yousuf Rawther Vs. Sowramma, AIR 1971 Ker 261 , Abbas Ali Vs. Mt. Rabia Bibi, AIR 1952 All 145 and Mt. Anis Begam and Others Vs. Malik Muhammad Istafa Wali Khan. All these cases are distinguishable and hardly support the case of the Appellant. 7. For the reasons stated above, there is no force in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.