K.Harilal, J.

1. The appellant is the husband of the respondent herein.

He was the petitioner in O.P.(G&W) No.551/2015 of the

Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The aforesaid

original petition was filed seeking declaration of

guardianship and for permanent custody of the minor

boy. The marital relationship and legitimacy of the

children are not disputed. According to the petitioner,

due to the differences of opinion, the petitioner and

the respondent fell apart and now the petitioner is

residing and working at Ernakulam and the respondent

is residing in her parental house and working at

3

Thiruvananthapuram. The children are living along

with the respondent at Thiruvananthapuram in the

parental house of the respondent. The elder son is

aged 14 years and now he is studying in 8^th standard at

Christ Nagar School, Thiruvananthapuram and the

younger boy is in 2^nd standard in the very same school.

According to the petitioner, after marriage they were

living together and were working at Ernakulam and the

children were born at Ernakulam. When the eldest son

was studying in 2^nd standard, the respondent on her

own volition, had shifted her residence to

Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter the younger son was

also shifted to Thiruvananthapuram. In the meantime

the respondent got employment in the Revenue

4

Department at Ernakulam and after the shifting of

children to her parental house at Thiruvananthapuram,

the respondent got deputation to a welfare fund board

and got transfer to Thiruvananthapuram. Thus, now

she is working at Thiruvananthapuram and children are

also studying in the school referred to above at

Thiruvananthapuram.

2. According to the averments in the petition, the main

reason for the desertion of the petitioner by the

respondent is that she wants to continue her illicit

relationship with her paramour without any

interruption. Even though mediators intervened in the

matter, there was no difference in the attitude of the

respondent. Though the petitioner had taken the

5

respondent and children to his home, the said

happiness ended only for a few days. While residing

there, the respondent again started to talk with her

paramour which resulted in a big quarrel between the

petitioner and the respondent. According to the

petitioner, the respondent is leading a wayward life and

have no right to keep the custody of the minor

children. The petitioner reasonably apprehends that

permanent custody of the child with the respondent

will adversely affect the welfare of the children.

Petitioner can very well look after the affairs of the

children, if he is having custody of the minor wards.

The respondent is not allowing him to see the children.

According to the petitioner, the children need love,

6

affection and care from the father. With the aforesaid

averments, the petitioner prayed for declaration to

appoint him as the guardian of the ward and for a

decree granting permanent custody of the children to

the petitioner.

3. The respondent filed written objection resisting the

claim for permanent custody and denied the averments

in the petition that the respondent is leading a

wayward life. According to the respondent, the original

petition is only a counter blast to the complaint filed by

the respondent under the provisions of the protection

of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. At the

time of marriage she was given with 110.5 sovereigns

of gold ornaments. But subsequently, while they were

7

living together, the petitioner has misappropriated the

said gold ornaments and sold the same to meet his

own needs only. Her entire ornaments were collected

by the petitioner after the marriage and she had to give

her salary to the petitioner from the very beginning

itself. The matrimonial relationship between the

petitioner and the respondent was not peaceful.

According to the respondent due to the harassment of

the petitioner, she was constr