JUDGMENT : SANJAY GOWDA, J. The appellant/husband has preferred this appeal challenging the decree by which his marriage with the respondent/wife was dissolved and also the rejection of his counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights. 2. The appellant/husband is also aggrieved by the order directing him to pay permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/-to the respondent/wife and also litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-. 3. At the outset, it is to be stated here that this Court, on 30.09.2015, while considering the application for condonation of delay and the application for stay, directed that the order impugned would be stayed subject to the condition that the appellant deposits a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-within a period of three weeks, failing which, it was made clear that the interim order granted would stand vacated. Despite this order to deposit a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-in order to get the benefit of the stay, the appellant has chosen not to comply with the said order. 4. On 21.09.2020, during the course of hearing, when this Court noticed that the conditions imposed in the interim order had not been complied with and thus the interim order stood vacated, appellant’s counsel submitted that the appellant was not pressing his appeal with regard to the dissolution of the marriage, but was confining his appeal only to the order directing him to pay permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/-. This Court also observed that since no amount had been paid by the appellant to the respondent, the appellant was not even justified in prosecuting the appeal. 5. At this stage, a request was made by the appellant’s counsel to secure instructions in the matter and explore the possibility of paying some amount. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 28.09.2020. 6. On 28.09.2020, this Court observed that though a specific order was made to enable the appellant to comply with the conditions imposed in the interim order, no compliance was forthcoming and this Court felt it necessary to direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-into the Bank Account of the respondent, (the details of which had already been furnished) within a period of four weeks. It was observed that if the said order was not complied with, the appeal itself would be liable for dismissal and adjourned the matter to 02.11.2020. 7. It was observed that if the said order was not complied with, the appeal itself would be liable for dismissal and adjourned the matter to 02.11.2020. 7. After passing of the said order, learned counsel for the appellant has made an application on 21.10.2020 seeking to recall the order dated 28.09.2020 by which appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-and he has also made one more application for recalling that portion of the order dated 21.09.2020 pertaining to the submission of the counsel with regard to not pressing of the appeal for dissolution of marriage. 8. After hearing the Learned Counsel, by a separate order dated 02.11.2020, we have dismissed both the applications. As a consequence, the only question to be considered in the present appeal is: “Whether the Family Court was justified in awarding a permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/-to the respondent/wife?” 9. The respondent/wife had instituted proceedings for dissolution of marriage under Section 27(1)(a)(d) and 27(1A)(i) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. She principally contended that the appellant was in the habit of having extra marital affairs and treating her cruelly and therefore, she was entitled to a decree of divorce. 10. The said claim for divorce was stoutly opposed and a counter claim was also raised, under which the appellant sought for restitution of conjugal rights. 11. The Family Court, on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the allegations regarding extra marital affairs were not proved, but the allegations of the wife regarding cruelty meted out to her by her husband had been proved and so also her allegation that her husband had been guilty of rape, sodomy, bestiality, were also proved. The Family Court accordingly dissolved the marriage by granting a decree of divorce. The Family Court also considered the counter claim and came to the conclusion that the respondent/husband was not entitled for restitution of conjugal rights. 12. Insofar as the claim regarding permanent alimony of the wife was concerned, the Family Court recorded the following finding at paragraph 35 of the judgment as follows: “35. On going through the records produced by him it is clear that his business was running very profitably and at an average of 7 – 8 lakhs per month, he has got turn over. On going through the records produced by him it is clear that his business was running very profitably and at an average of 7 – 8 lakhs per month, he has got turn over. He has produced Ex.R-13 TDS return under Form No.16-A submitted along with broker commission bill supports the contention of PW-1. Ex.R-11 is the Acumen Capital Market (India) Ltd. D-mat Share account. According to him it is standing in the name of Laxmi Pai, but in fact he had taken it and that cannot be a document to show that she has got income. Therefore, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is an authorized dealer and distributor in Nestle Company Products having lucrative business up to 7-8 lakhs turn over. If it were to be taken that minimum 10-15% profit on sales as rightly contended by respondent he is having income more than Rs.1,00,000/-per month.” (underlining by us) 13. Thus, the Family Court, on consideration of the documentary evidence has noticed that the appellant had a turn over of Rs.7,00,000/-to Rs.8,00,000/ per month and that he was an authorized dealer and distributor of Nestle Company Products and on the said monthly turn he would make at least 10 to 15% profit and the Family Court on that basis has come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-towards permanent alimony was just and reasonable. 14. The Family Court has also considered the contention advanced by the appellant/husband regarding the income that the respondent/wife was earning as an agent of the LIC and has come to the conclusion that though it had been proved that the respondent was working as an LIC agent, her remuneration from her work was not adequate enough to maintain herself and her children. 15. Thus, the Family Court has recorded a finding that the appellant/husband had an income of Rs.1,00,000/-per month and the income of the respondent/wife as an agent of LIC was not an assured income and the said income would be insufficient to maintain herself. 16. 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. 16. 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), 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 non-working 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 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.” 17. Keeping in view these principles laid down by the Apex Court, we have to examine whether the determination of Rs.30,00,000/-as permanent alimony by the Family Court was just and proper. 18. It may be relevant to state here that the respondent/wife produced a letter issued by the Syndicate Bank (Ex.P.20), in which the Syndicate Bank informed M/s.Nestle India Limited in relation to M/s.Pai Distributors i.e., the distribution business run by the appellant/husband. In the said letter, the Syndicate Bank attested to the health of the said firm and noted that the Bank was dealing with the said firm for the last 14 years and their past dealings with the said firm were quite good and that the appellant had expertise in the said line of business and had a good net worth. They also stated that the said unit was being run profitably and had a bright future. They also stated they had SUD facility of Rs.5,00,000/-with the appellant/husband and they certified that his Distributorship Agency had a good track record. 19. The respondent/wife also produced the sales report of certain period which was marked as Ex.P21 which catalogued the entire sales conducted by the Distributorship Agency run by the appellant/husband over a period of time which also reflected the robust sales of the distributorship firm run by the appellant-husband. 20. The letter of the Syndicate Bank coupled with the sales report clearly and categorically indicate that the financial status of the husband in relation to his business of distributorship of Nestle products was profitable, healthy and more importantly sustainable. 21. In our view, therefore, the findings recorded by the Family Court as regards the monthly income of the appellant cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. The Family Court has taken into consideration the fact that the appellant was running a Distributorship of Nestle Company products and the evidence on record indicated that he had adequate income and therefore, the award of Rs.30,00,000/-as permanent alimony, was just and proper. 22. The Family Court has taken into consideration the fact that the appellant was running a Distributorship of Nestle Company products and the evidence on record indicated that he had adequate income and therefore, the award of Rs.30,00,000/-as permanent alimony, was just and proper. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of his arguments, was not able to point out any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Family Court. He, however, sought to contend that, of late, the appellant had fallen into bad times and was not earning adequate income and would therefore not be able to pay the permanent alimony awarded. 23. In our view, the income tax returns from 2015 to 2020 which are now produced cannot be the yardstick for determination of permanent alimony. This is because it is quite probable that in the background of a bitter litigation pertaining to the marriage, the possibility of a deliberate attempt to downplay the income in order to escape the liability of payment of alimony cannot be ruled out. 24. In our view, the proper course would be to consider the evidence produced relating to the period prior to the genesis of the dispute. 25. The appellant in his affidavit evidence regarding his income has stated as follows: “I say that, on average I am getting a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-income per year. I was/is/will be looking after my two minor children and also paying the school fees and other expenses and petitioner need not bother about those things. On that pretext the petitioner is not allowed to make money / grab money from me. If the petitioner is unable to look after the children I will look after them. Therefore pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-as permanent alimony or in alternative pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-per month as monthly maintenance to her does not arise.” (underlining by us) 26. A perusal of the said statement would make it clear that even according to the appellant, he is prepared to look after not only the respondent, but also his children and this statement by itself would be indicative of the fact that he has an adequate and definite source of income. 27. The appellant, during the course of his cross-examination, has also admitted that for the month of December and January, the monthly turn over of his distributorship was Rs.8,76,042/-and Rs.9,82,703/-respectively. 27. The appellant, during the course of his cross-examination, has also admitted that for the month of December and January, the monthly turn over of his distributorship was Rs.8,76,042/-and Rs.9,82,703/-respectively. In view of the fact that the appellant admitted during the course of his cross-examination that he was having a turn over of almost Rs.9,00,000/-every month, it cannot be said that the award of permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/-, in any way is exorbitant. 28. It may also be pertinent to state here that the appellant himself produced his audited balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2010, 31.03.2011, 31.03.2012 and 31.03.2013 as Ex.R10 series. The profit and loss account statement in the said balance sheets indicate that M/s.Pai Distributors, Surathkal, of which the appellant is the proprietor, had a sales turn over of Rs.1,13,23,455/-for the year ending 31.03.2011, Rs.1,16,10,420/-for the year ending 31.03.2012 and Rs.1,20,10,721/-for the year ending 31.03.2013. These statement confirm the admission of the appellant that his firm was having an annual turn over of more than rupees 1.1 crore, thereby meaning the monthly turn over was in the range of Rs.10,00,000/-. In the light of this documentary evidence produced by the appellant himself, the Family Court was absolutely justified in recording a finding that the income of the appellant was at least minimum of Rs.1,00,000/-per month. What therefore follows from this discussion is that the Family Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondent/wife was entitled to a permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/-. 29. It is also to be noticed here that in the evidence of the appellant, he also admitted that he had started a Partnership Firm in the name of his wife and his sister, thereby indicating that the business of the appellant was indeed a thriving business. 30. In our view, having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced before the Family Court and the facts and circumstances of this case, the sum of Rs.30,00,000/-awarded as permanent alimony to the respondent/wife cannot be said to be in any way unjust or improper. 31. We are also constrained to observe that despite specific orders of this Court to deposit at least a part of the permanent alimony awarded, the appellant has chosen to disobey the order. 31. We are also constrained to observe that despite specific orders of this Court to deposit at least a part of the permanent alimony awarded, the appellant has chosen to disobey the order. Further, after making a submission that he was confining his appeal only in respect of the permanent alimony awarded, an attempt was made to resile from the said stand and also challenge the grant of decree relating to divorce. We are, therefore, of the view that the conduct of the appellant does not prove his sincerity or honesty in any of the contentions advanced by him and we are inclined to agree with the finding of the Family Court that interest of justice would be met, if a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-is awarded as permanent alimony. We, thus, see no reason to interfere with the order of the Family Court and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs in respect of this appeal.