M. P. CHANDRAKANTHARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THIS Petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is directed against the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore dated 2nd day of January, 1990 on. A. II in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 31/1989 on its file. ( 2 ) THE said application came to be filed by the applicant before the Family Court in Proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking interim maintenance pending disposal of their Petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They alleged that the respondent who is the petitioner in this Court is having an income of Rs. 3500/- and he has also rental income of Rs. 2,000/- per mensem and therefore, each of them should be awarded interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 500/ -. Respondent resisted the same by averring that his income is not what the applicants claim and that he gets only Rs. 2325/- per mensem and he has to maintain his family and as such application must be dismissed. ( 3 ) IT is noticed by the court below that respondent-2, admittedly the son of the respondent in the lower-court, had attained the age of majority and therefore not entitled to maintenance. Therefore, the Court considered the claims of first petitioner and petitioners 3 and 4. The petitioner in this Court disclaimed paternity of respondents 2 and 3 on the ground that they are born not from out of the wed-lock. But he placed no evidence before court to support that assertion. It is in that circumstance, acting on evidence produced by applicants, Court has to come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 400/- per month for the wife and Rs. 200/- to each of the children may be awarded as interim compensation. ( 4 ) THE Court has relied upon salary certificate produced by the applicant for the year 1988-89 which showed that the gross salary was in the sum of Rs. 35,412/-which makes it approximately rs. 3,000/- per month. Only income-tax of Rs. 908/- for the entire year had been deducted. Other compulsory deductions claimed by the writ petitioner were not supported by any evidence placed before the Court by him. 35,412/-which makes it approximately rs. 3,000/- per month. Only income-tax of Rs. 908/- for the entire year had been deducted. Other compulsory deductions claimed by the writ petitioner were not supported by any evidence placed before the Court by him. In that circumstance, the Court has been forced to make an estimate of the minimum requirement of applicants 1, 3 and 4 who were entitled to the maintenance having regard to the cost of living in the present day circumstances at Rs. 400/- per mensem for the wife and Rs. 200/- for each of the children. It cannot be said to be excessive. ( 5 ) ONCE the descretion has been exercised after due application of mind by the court-below and in the absence of any cogent material placed by the petitioner before the court-below, this Court will not interfere when there is no failure of justice or jurisdictional errors in the order. Petition is dismissed.