JUDGMENT : SANJAY GOWDA, J. The appellant/husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of marriage with the respondent/wife on the ground that she has treated him cruelly and she has deserted him. Despite a serious contest by the respondent/wife, the Family Court accepted the case of the appellant/husband and dissolved the marriage by grant of a decree of divorce. 2. However, while dissolving the marriage, the Family Court issued a direction to the appellant/husband to pay permanent alimony of Rs.8,00,000/-to the respondent/wife within three months and also held that the custody of the minor daughter of the appellant and respondent would continue with the respondent/wife. The appellant/husband being aggrieved only of that portion of the order of the Family Court by which permanent alimony of Rs.8,00,000/-was awarded to the respondent/wife is in appeal. 3. The Family Court in order to come to the conclusion that the respondent/wife was entitled to permanent alimony of Rs.8,00,000/-has recorded a finding that the husband basically wanted to take advantage of the fact that the wife was working as an attender in Canara College and therefore, had adequate income to maintain herself and thereby deny her any alimony. The Family Court also recorded a finding that he had also chosen not to divulge the truth about his earnings. The Family Court by relying upon the evidence of the wife and her father regarding the financial capability of the appellant/husband came to the conclusion that the husband would be earning a bare minimum of Rs.40,000/-per month and on that said premise, the Family Court reasoned that in a City like Mangaluru even if it is taken that the respondent/wife was earning Rs.10,000/-per month, she would require a minimum sum of at least Rs.10,000/-per month to maintain her daughter and also to provide a roof over her head. The Family Court has also noticed that the respondent/wife was all along taking care of educational needs of her minor daughter and having regard to the standard of living that was commensurate with her status, a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-as permanent alimony would be just and reasonable. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband has attacked this finding of the Family Court contending that the same was based on surmises and conjectures. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband has attacked this finding of the Family Court contending that the same was based on surmises and conjectures. He submitted that since it was not in dispute that the respondent was running a petty shop and was earning Rs.5,000/-per month, the Family Court has seriously erred in awarding a huge sum of Rs.8,00,000/-as permanent alimony. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/wife supported the impugned judgment and contended that the sum of Rs.8,00,000/-awarded by the Family Court was fair, just and reasonable. He submitted that there was no error in the judgment of the Family Court which warranted interference in appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties we have also perused the records. 7. The principles governing the grant of permanent alimony have been laid down by the Apex Court in a recent judgment rendered in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & another in Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9503 of 2018), the salient features of which are as under: “The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependant children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a nonworking wife. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e., maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meager that it drives the wife to penury. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e., maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meager that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort. Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration: (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant’s property and any income derived from such property, (v) income from claimant’s own earning or from any other source. Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.” Thus, it will have to be seen as to whether the award of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-as permanent alimony is reasonable, realistic and is not extravagant and at the same time not meager. 8. In this case, it has been borne out by evidence that the respondent/wife was working as an attender in Canara College and was earning a gross salary of Rs.12,599/-and her take home salary of Rs.10,867/-per month. It has also come out in evidence that she was residing along with her father and the house in which they were residing was not her father’s property and her father had been permitted to be in possession of the same and they had no immovable property of their own. The respondent/wife also produced number of receipts evidencing payment of school fees made by her towards her daughter’s educational needs which indicated that she had been taking care of all the educational expenses of her daughter. 9. The Family Court has noticed that the appellant/husband had not paid maintenance to his minor daughter at all. The respondent/wife also produced number of receipts evidencing payment of school fees made by her towards her daughter’s educational needs which indicated that she had been taking care of all the educational expenses of her daughter. 9. The Family Court has noticed that the appellant/husband had not paid maintenance to his minor daughter at all. It is also noticed that his family owned a house in Chikmagalur which was named as ‘Arya Durga Meera Srinivasa’ and the fact that this house was his family house could be inferred since his mother’s name was Meera and his father’s name was Srinivasa. The Family Court also noticed that the evidence of the respondent/wife and her father was to the effect that the appellant was having a shopping complex and was running a wholesale plastic material business and he was earning a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-per month. In fact, the father of the respondent stated that the appellant owned a house and a car, but they could not get the relevant documents in that regard. Thus, the evidence on record indicates that the respondent/wife is working as an attender and is taking care of her minor daughter all by herself on her take home salary, which was only about Rs.10,867/-per month. 10. In order to look at the entire matter in a realistic manner, one would have to take into consideration the bare minimum that a single mother would have to spend on the educational needs of her minor daughter and also of herself. Given the present cost of living, the expenditure that would be incurred for the educational and basic needs of a child would easily be in excess of Rs.5,000/-every month, even if a child were to be admitted into a government school. In addition to the educational needs, the day to day living expenses of the mother would also add up to be a considerable sum and it is thus clear that on a salary of about Rs.11,000/-per month, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to lead a reasonably comfortable life. 11. The appellant/husband is admittedly running a business. Though he claims he was earning only a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month, the fact that he has deliberately chosen not to adduce any evidence, which indicated that he was making only Rs.5,000/-, by itself, would lead to an inference that his income was definitely more than Rs.5,000/-. 12. 11. The appellant/husband is admittedly running a business. Though he claims he was earning only a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month, the fact that he has deliberately chosen not to adduce any evidence, which indicated that he was making only Rs.5,000/-, by itself, would lead to an inference that his income was definitely more than Rs.5,000/-. 12. In our view, the finding of the Family Court which is based on the evidence of the wife and her father and other surrounding circumstances cannot be said to be in any way perverse or arbitrary. The Family Court, in our view, has adopted a reasonable approach and has viewed the entire matter in a very realistic manner and has proceeded to come to the conclusion that the respondent and her child would require a sum of at least Rs.20,000/-per month to lead a moderate life and having regard to that factor, it has come to the conclusion that if permanent alimony of Rs.8,00,000/-was awarded, the basic and reasonable needs of the wife and child would be met. 13. In our view, the reasoning of the Family Court is just and proper and is based on a realistic assessment of the entire evidence which was adduced before it and on appreciation of ground realities of life. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court and consequently, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by it. This appeal is therefore dismissed.