K. Harilal, J.

The appellant is the petitioner in Original Petition No.901 of 2007 of the Family Court, Kozhikode. He is the husband of the respondent herein. The petitioner filed the aforesaid Original Petition, seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Parties are referred to as in the Original Petition.

2. According to the averments in the Original Petition, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 25.12.2005 as per Muslim religious rites and ceremonies and they lived together as husband and wife at the house of the petitioner and a child was born out of the said wedlock. After the marriage, the petitioner behaved very lovingly and affectionately. While so, she became pregnant and was taken to her house at the seventh month of pregnancy and thereafter she gave birth to the child. At the time of delivery, the petitioner met all expenses in connection with the delivery. After the delivery, the respondent and the child were taken to the house of the petitioner and the respondent lived there for two days. After two days, the respondent wanted to go to her house with the consent of the petitioner and the petitioner gave consent for the same and she went to her house with the child. Thereafter, she did not return so far and she is living separately from him, without any sufficient reason. The petitioner is desirous of resuming the marital relationship with the respondent. Even though he has made all his earnest efforts to resume cohabitation, the respondent refused to live with the petitioner in the matrimonial home. Though, he caused to send a lawyer’s notice requesting the respondent to come back and resume cohabitation with him in the matrimonial home, the respondent refused to receive the said letter and it was returned to him. Thus, the respondent abandoned the petitioner without any reasonable excuse. She totally neglected and deserted him. With the aforesaid averments, the petitioner prayed for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. The respondent filed a counter-statement, admitting the allegation that she is living separately from the petitioner after the delivery of the child. According to her, there are sufficient reasons for withdrawing from the society of the petitioner. She is living separately from the petitioner due to the ill-treatment of the petitioner, his mother, brother and sisters. The petitioner and his mother behaved cruelly towards her. The petitioner’s mother and sisters harassed her on demand of more dowry. The respondent has received a lawyer’s notice issued by the petitioner demanding restitution of conjugal rights, as claimed by him. The petitioner, his mother, brother and sisters have made several attempts to kill her by pouring kerosene on her body. Since the respondent had no other way, she was constrained to live separately from the matrimonial home. She was harassed by the petitioner, his mother, his brother and sisters on demand of more dowry and gold ornaments. So also, they have propagated scandalous statements to defame the dignity and reputation of the respondent. She was assaulted physically and she was admitted and treated for the same in the Co-operative hospital. The petitioner, his mother and sisters declared that after the delivery she will be taken back to the matrimonial home, only if her parents give the rest of the gold ornaments and money.

4. On the aforesaid rival pleadings, both parties went to trial. The petitioner was examined as RW.1 and his sister was examined as RW.2 and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked. The respondent was examined as PW.1 and Ext.A1 was marked. On appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, the Family Court passed the impugned order, dismissing the Original Petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. It is not disputed that the petitioner and the respondent lived together in the matrimonial home till the delivery of the child and after the delivery, sh