( 1 ) THE first petitioner who is the wife and the second and third petitioners who are the children of the first respondent are aggrieved of the order passed by the second respondent-family court in exercise of its power under the Provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 in the maintenance proceedings initiated by the petitioners and hence they have filed this writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the order urging various facts and legal contentions and prayed for enhancement of interim maintenance.

( 2 ) THE claim for maintenance in the original maintenance petition by the petitioners is Rs. 3,500/- per month and Rs. 10,000/- towards the litigation expenses. In the said proceedings, the interim application No. Ii was filed before the second respondent for grant of interim maintenance to the petitioners stating that the first respondent has driven the first petitioner out of his house and that she has been abandoned by her husband and that she has temporarily taken shelter in her parents' house. It is stated that she has also joined 5 years l. l. b. course so that she could stand on her own legs and to maintain herself and her children, they require interim maintenance. It is also stated that she has to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- p. a. towards her college fees, Rs. 3,000/- p. a. towards the 2nd petitioner's school fees and also Rs. 250/- towards his conveyance.

( 3 ) IT is stated that the first respondent is a lecturer in the college drawing more than a sum of Rs. 6,000/- p. m. as his salary as on the date of filing the interim application. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that they have produced the documents to substantiate their claim for awarding interim maintenance in their favour as there was absolute need and requirement for awarding the same. The said application was opposed by the first respondent on various grounds. The second respondent-family court, after considering the merits of the application has allowed the same partly directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 750/- per month to the first petitioner, Rs. 200/- p. m. to the second petitioner and Rs. 150/- p. m. to the third petitioner as full maintenance from the date of the application namely 17-12-1994. Further the first respondent was also granted 12 monthly instalments to pay the entire arrears. This order is challenged in the writ petition contending that the learned judge of the family court has not exercised his jurisdiction properly in awarding the maintenance as claimed by them taking into consideration the relevant documents produced by them in support of their claim. Further, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first respondent did not produce the salary certificate before the family court to show what was his gross salary which was drawn by him as on the date of consideration of the application and further contended that the reasons assigned by the family court in the impugned order in not awarding the maintenance as claimed by them in the interim application are not legal, valid and cogent. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition invoking the extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction of this court as they have no alternative remedy provided under the Provisions of the act.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the first respondent Mr. Bapu heddur shetty has placed reliance on the division bench judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Shashi sharma alias seema v praveen sharma and another, for the proposition that against the order passed by the family court under the Provisions of the Act, the writ petition cannot be treated as an appeal. Therefore, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked by this court to find out the correctness or otherwise of the order that would amount to exercising the appellate power under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. Therefore, the learned counsel for the first respon