Rajan, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order in O.P.(MM) No.753/2007 of the Family Court, Alappuzha. Appellant is the husband and respondent is the wife in this appeal. Wife preferred the above petition in the Family Court for dissolution of marriage under section 2 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 (for brevity 'the Act').

2. The facts in nutshell are as follows:- Appellant married the respondent on 16-5-1999 according to Muslim religious rites and after that both of them resided together in the matrimonial house. A child was born to them on 17-8-2004 and the appellant did not care to meet the hospital expenses for the delivery. Before the marriage the father of the respondent entrusted Rs.3 lakhs to the appellant, which was misused by the appellant. The respondent was also given 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents and out of which 45 sovereigns were taken away by the appellant for his sister's marriage. Five months after delivery, for a few days and lastly in February, 2004 the appellant had sexual intercourse with the respondent. After that he avoided the respondent and refused to have sexual intercourse with her. Even though the respondent persuaded him, he failed to discharge his matrimonial obligation for more than three years preceding from the date of petition. After delivery when she returned to her matrimonial house, the appellant demanded Rs.7 lakhs as dowry and demanded a car. When she was incapable to pay the amount, she was harassed mentally. Moreover, when she was residing with him, he did not maintain her. He did not take care in giving her dresses or meeting medical expenses in her day today life. When the appellant demanded more amount as dowry, she left the matrimonial home in January, 2006. Now their matrimonial relationship is irretrievably broken and the respondent approached the Family Court for a decree of dissolution of the marriage.

3. The husband resisted the above said facts contending, inter alia, that the wife was having only less than 40 sovereigns of gold at the time of the marriage and none of the gold was taken by him or his parents. There was no mental or physical harassment from his side and there was no demand for dowry. He paid all hospital expenses, when she was admitted in the hospital for delivery and thereafter. It was out of his income, the respondent studied P.G. Degree, B.Ed. Course, SET and got employment in Cochin University as an Assistant. He was not aware under what circumstances 20 cents were given to her by her parents. He contended that no legal grounds are put forward by the respondent for a decree of divorce and prays to dismiss the petition.

4. The Family Court tried both petitions (i.e., O.P. (OS) Nos.752 and 753 of 2007) jointly and recorded evidence in O.P.(OS) No.753/2007. Both parties adduced both oral and documentary evidence, which consist oral testimony of PWs. 1 to 3 and RWs. 1 to 3 and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A19 and Exts.B1 to B6. Court exhibits were Exts.C1 and C2 and third party exhibit was Ext.X1. The Family Court after sifting and weighing the evidence on record, decreed the suit by declaring that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was dissolved from the date of the decree. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Family Court, the husband preferred this appeal.

5. Sri V. Ramakumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that there was no allegation in the petition that the matrimonial relationship between the appellant and the respondent was broken irretrievably. The alleged cruelty of non-sex is not pleaded and proved in this case. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized according to Muhammadan Law. Section 2(ix) of the Act was not pleaded in the Family Court. In the proof affidavit also no grounds are mentioned. The respondent is not entitled to get a decree of dissolution of marriage.

6. Sri. P.K. Ibrahim, the learned counsel a