JUDGMENT :- K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. The wife and children of the respondent have filed a petition seeking maintenance. In the petition it is stated that the first appellant (wife) was subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty. A complaint was filed against the respondent in Cr. No. 357 of 1994 for committing the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. It is further stated that the respondent during the pendency of the complaint bigamously married to one Manjula and he has two children in the wedlock. The respondent/ husband contested the suit and denied the allegations of cruelty. The respondent alleged that the first appellant developed illicit intimacy with one Ramaiah and because of illicit intimacy she deserted the company of the respondent. 3. The appellant has examined as P.W. 1. The respondent/husband has examined himself as D.W. 1 and one witness-D.W. 2. The husband has not placed any credible evidence to prove the illicit intimacy with one Ramaiah that she has deliberately deserted the company of the respondent. 4. The husband has filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court has allowed the petition and granted decree on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The wife is in appeal. 5. The evidence discloses that the criminal complaint given by the wife against the husband for dowry harassment and cruelty ended in acquittal. The wife in the criminal case has not deposed in support of her complaint. The fact of giving false complaint itself amounts to cruelty. Therefore the grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty is sound and proper. 6. The wife has not let in evidence to prove the bigamous marriage of husband with one Manjula. The allegation of cruelty is not established. It is in the evidence that the petitioner who is a housewife and residing separately. In that view, the grant of divorce on the ground of desertion is sound and proper. The wife has also stated in evidence that she is not willing to reside with the husband despite his offer. The appeal M.F.A. No. 7611 of 2005 is accordingly dismissed. 7. The husband has although secured divorce is bound to pay alimony to the deserted wife. The wife has also stated in evidence that she is not willing to reside with the husband despite his offer. The appeal M.F.A. No. 7611 of 2005 is accordingly dismissed. 7. The husband has although secured divorce is bound to pay alimony to the deserted wife. Insofar as the daughter is concerned, she is concerned, she is entitled for maintenance until she gets married and the son is concerned, he is entitled until he attains majority. 8. The family Court has granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- p.m. to each of the appellants. The wife and children are in appeal seeking enhancement. 9. The appellants have produced the latest salary certificate of the respondent, which shows that he is getting monthly salary of Rs. 20,000/-p.m. Keeping in view the basic needs of the appellants, we direct that the respondent/husband shall pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. to each of the appellants i.e., in all Rs. 6,000/- p.m. from the date of the appeal till payment. The respondent shall continue to pay maintenance in respect of first appellant through out her lifetime and in respect of the daughter until she gets married and in respect of son, until he attains majority Accordingly, M.F.A. No. 1873 of 2003 is allowed.