K.M.Joseph, J.

1. Appellant is the respondent in O.P.46/2009 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. The petition was filed before the Family Court by the respondent who is the husband of the appellant seeking custody of two children. The case of the respondent/husband in the OP is as follows inter alia. Respondent and appellant are husband and wife. Their marriage was on 26.1.1997. Within three months from the date of marriage the respondent left India to Gulf countries for continuing his job. The first child was born to them on 23.6.1999. From his hard earned money he purchased a plot for constructing a house in the year 2000. On 31.8.2002 the second son was born. During 2000-2003 the respondent constructed a house in the plot purchased spending about Rs. 9 lakhs. Since the respondent was working abroad, minors were under the custody and care of the appellant. There was a tumour in the leg of the elder son and treatment was made. The entire expenses claimed by the appellant for treatment ie about Rs. 9 lakhs was sent by the respondent to the appellant. The respondent also bought one innova, one Scropio, one Ambassadar car and an authorikshaw thinking that it will be a good investment and further to provide better facility to the wife and children. One Mr. Santhosh was a driver of one of the vehicles. The appellant's approach towards the respondent started changing when she developed unreasonable intimacy with the driver and later on that became more strong and the money and the vehicles of the respondent is shared by Mr. Santhosh. On verifying the account the respondent found that the amount claimed for treatment of the minor is misused by the appellant by utilizing the same for the whims and fancies of Santhosh. The RC of the innova car purchased in the name of the appellant is transferred in the name of Santhosh. Appellant is not interested in the welfare of the children.

The appellant filed counter affidavit contending inter alia as follows: The parents of the appellant also spent money for the purchase of the plot and for construction of the house. It is not correct to say that the petitioner himself spent Rs. 9 lakhs for the construction of the house. The respondent has not spent a single paise for the treatment of the child. Appellant is constrained to spend huge amount for the treatment of the child. Appellant has no relationship with Santhosh other than a driver. No amount has been misused and no amount from the account of the petitioner has been spent for the whims and fancies of Santhosh. Appellant has not transferred the innova car in the name of Santhosh. Santhosh has fabricated some documents with the forged signature of the appellant and transferred the vehicle in his name. When the appellant came to know this she filed a petition before the CI of Police, Ottappalam and due to his interference the vehicle again transferred in the name of the respondent. The appellant is always giving utmost love and care to the minors. The respondent is a total drunkard and it will affect the bright future of the minors if their custody is handed over to the respondent.

2. During the pendency of the case one of the sons died. The parties are left with a 9 year old son. The Family Court has allowed the petition filed by the respondent/father and given permanent custody of the child. The Court made further arrangements which reads as follows.

"In the result, petition allowed giving permanent custody of the child Amal Anand aged 9 years to the petitioner from first April 2012 onwards (if it is a holiday on the next working day). Respondent is directed to handover the permanent custody of the minor Amal Anand to the petitioner on the said day in the morning at 11 a.m, before this court. During the current year petitioner can have interim custody of the child on every first and last Saturdays from the morning and custody shall be returned on Sunday evening. Parties can decide the venue and exact time of taking and han