V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 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. 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 respondent submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in law. He has placed reliance at paragraphs 8 and 11 in support of his submission which reads thus:"8. The remedy under article 226 of the Constitution cannot be permitted to be availed of for the purposes of frustrating the welfare legislation or allowed to be an appeal in disguise. The article is not intended to circumvent the statutory procedure. He has placed reliance at paragraphs 8 and 11 in support of his submission which reads thus:"8. The remedy under article 226 of the Constitution cannot be permitted to be availed of for the purposes of frustrating the welfare legislation or allowed to be an appeal in disguise. The article is not intended to circumvent the statutory procedure. Where the petitioner is shown to have remedy of challenging the final order by way of appeal, the high court would normally not exercise its jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution. 11. If the high court decides to interfere with the interim orders passed by the family courts, the same is likely to frustrate the Provisions of the act which are intended to achieve a social object as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons and the various Provisions noticed hereinabove. No writ petition is therefore maintainable against the interim orders passed by the family court unless the same is shown to be in violation of the conditions noted hereinabove". ( 5 ) IN this case, this court granted Rule nisi on 6-9-1995 after having satisfied with the facts of the case and thought it fit to examine the impugned order in exercise of its power under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. The division bench of this court in the case of Karnataka state road transport corporation and others v Karnataka state transport authority and another, for the proposition that this court has to consider the case on merits, when once this court issues Rule even though the party has got an effective alternative remedy against the impugned order. At paragraph 9 of this judgment, this court has laid down the law, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereun- der for proper appreciation of rival contentions of the parties:"in our opinion, the refusal of the 'sta' to consider the application of the petitioner de hors the inter-state agreement on the ground set out in the order would show that there is a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested on it besides constituting an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Even where an equally efficacious alternative remedy exists, where, however fundamental rights are affected where rules of natural Justice are violated, or where there is a failure on the part of the authority concerned to confine itself within the bounds of its legitimate jurisdiction or where there is a failure to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it or where there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record, a person aggrieved can invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 without reference to any remedy however equally efficacious it be. The existence of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the high court under article 226. The Rule that the court does not entertain a petition under article 226 when there is an equally efficacious alternative remedy is not a Rule of law, but is a principle the courts have evolved for the guidance of their own discretion. In regard to the effect of the existence of an alternative remedy in the context of certiorari halsbury (iv edition), volume 11, para 1528 states: "there is no Rule in regard to certiorari, as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy; and, provided the requisite grounds exist, certiorari will lie although a right of appeal has been conferred by statute". that apart, the learned chief Justice exercised his discretion in entertaining the writ petition. It may not be appropriate for us, in appeal, to interfere with that discretion, unless it is shown that the exercise of that discretion is arbitrary. An appeal against a discretionary order is an appeal on principle. Appellate court would not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal on the ground that if it had itself considered the matter it may have declined to exercise the discretion in that way. In the present case we find no grounds to interfere with the exercise of the discretion by the learned chief justice". ( 6 ) THE submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent is considered with reference to the Provisions of the act and keeping in view the law laid down by this court and apex court. The submission of the learned counsel Mr. Bapu heddur shetty and Mr. ( 6 ) THE submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent is considered with reference to the Provisions of the act and keeping in view the law laid down by this court and apex court. The submission of the learned counsel Mr. Bapu heddur shetty and Mr. V. B. Shivakumar is considered with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition with reference to the Provisions of the act. The learned counsel has fairly submitted against the impugned order passed by the second respondent-family court that there is no appeal provided under the Provisions of the act and the impugned order is a discretionary one passed by the family court in exercise of its power and jurisdiction for grant of interim maintenance in favour of the petitioners. It is well-established principle of law that grant of interim relief is incidental to the grant of main relief as prayed in the original petition for awarding maintenance is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of hindustan forest company v lal chand and others. The question for consideration for this court is whether the writ petition can be entertained by this court, even though the law laid down by the division bench of this court in the case of Smt. Shashi sharma, supra, upon which much reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent. The alternative submission made by the learned counsel is that in the absence of an effective alternative remedy provided under the Provisions of the act to challenge the inadequacy of granting interim maintenance awarded by the family court, the petitioners have got every right under the Provisions of the act to file an application before the second respondent seeking for enhancement of the interim maintenance already awarded by it. This submission of the learned counsel is not supported by any statutory Provisions under the Provisions of the Act, this relevant aspect of the matter has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of appreciating and considering the submission of the learned counsel regarding the maintainability of the petitions. This submission of the learned counsel is not supported by any statutory Provisions under the Provisions of the Act, this relevant aspect of the matter has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of appreciating and considering the submission of the learned counsel regarding the maintainability of the petitions. ( 7 ) BY reading the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Shashi sharma, supra, the law laid down by the division bench of this court cannot be disputed, but the question, in the said judgment is that this court has further considered the case of the apex court in assistant collector of central excise, chandan nagar, West Bengal v dunlop India limited and others, wherein it has laid down the law holding that, against the order passed by the family court, the writ petition under article 226 cannot be entertained unless that amounts to appeal which is a statutory right which should be provided to the party under the Provisions of the act. The power under articles 226 and 227 is an extraordinary arid discretionary and supervisory power conferred upon this court is a well- established principle of law laid down in catena of cases by the apex court. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioners in this petition for grant of extraordinary and discretionary power under the Provisions of the Constitution of india. The family court is subjected to the jurisdiction of this court for the purpose of exercising its power under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. In the absence of statutory Provisions in the act conferring the statutory right of appeal upon the parties against interlocutory orders, that would be passed on to the interlocutory applications, including applications for grant of interim maintenance, such orders are subject to the judicial review of this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. In such circumstances this court can exercise its power under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, keeping in mind the observations made at paragraph 9 of Smt. Shashi sharma's case, referred to above. The supreme court in the recent case dealing with the power of the judicial review of the high courts under article 226 has clearly enunciated law in the case of tata cellular v union of india. The supreme court in the recent case dealing with the power of the judicial review of the high courts under article 226 has clearly enunciated law in the case of tata cellular v union of india. ( 8 ) IN the said case, the power of judicial review, scope and jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been interpreted and law has been laid down at paragraphs 86, 90, 93 and 95 which read thus:"86. Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters whether contractual or political in nature or issues of social policy; thus they are not essentially justiciable and the need to remedy any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by judicial review. 90. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application of judicial review is made, but the decision making process itself. 93. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law. 3. Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice. 4. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or 5. Abused its powers. 94. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an Administrative Action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) illegality: this means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decisionmaking power and must give effect to it. (ii) irrationality, namely, wednesbury unreasonableness, (iii) procedural impropriety". ( 9 ) THE Provisions of the family court act provide for expeditious disposal of the matrimonial disputes and other related disputes between husband, wife and their children with regard to restitution of conjugal rights, dissolution of marriages and grant of maintenance. (ii) irrationality, namely, wednesbury unreasonableness, (iii) procedural impropriety". ( 9 ) THE Provisions of the family court act provide for expeditious disposal of the matrimonial disputes and other related disputes between husband, wife and their children with regard to restitution of conjugal rights, dissolution of marriages and grant of maintenance. In tata cel- lular's case, referred to supra, the apex court has held that the power of judicial review of this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is permissible against the decision-making process itself apart from the order passed by the family court on interim relief application suffers from illegality. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is subjected to judicial review of this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, as there is an error on the part of the family court in decision-making process and in not exercising its discretionary power properly though relevant documents are produced by the petitioners for awarding reasonable interim maintenance amount in their favour. The division bench of this court in the case of Smt. Shashi sharma, supra, has not considered the law laid down in the tata cellu- lar's case, supra, which was decided on 26-2-1993 if the said judgment would have been cited before the division bench in Smt. Shashi sharma's case, supra, the division bench could have considered the same and passed an appropriate order regarding the power of judicial review of this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. Apart from this reason, the division bench of this court in the said case has not excluded the judicial review power of this court in respect of the interim orders that would be passed by the family court, where no legal remedy is provided to the parties under the Provisions of the act is the observation made in the said judgment at paragraph 9, wherein it has been held that, there is no absolute bar for this court to entertain the writ petition against the interim order passed by the family court. In view of the observation made at paragraph 9 in the case referred to supra, the power of this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has not been completely excluded. In view of the observation made at paragraph 9 in the case referred to supra, the power of this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has not been completely excluded. What is required to be examined by this court is with reference to the impugned order and keeping in view the observations made at paragraph 9 in the case of Smt. Shashi sharma, supra and also the law laid down at paragraph 9 of the judgment in the case of Karnataka state road transport corporation, referred to supra, this court has considered the case of the petitioners and granted the relifs after answering the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties. It is an undisputed fact that, the petitioners have produced the documents as stated in their application to prove their claim. But the first respondent has not produced his salary certificate to show that his income does not exceed Rs. 6,000/- per month as on the date of consideration of interim relief application. In this background, the impugned order is examined and considered with reference to the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties on merits. It is also an undisputed fact that petitioners are the legal heirs of the first respondent. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel Mr. K. l. manjunath on behalf of the petitioners took me through the relevant paragraphs of the impugned order in support of their case. The undisputed fact is that two children are living with petitioner-mother. It is not the case of the first respondent that he filed an application before the second respondent seeking custody of the children. Therefore, the family court should have taken into consideration of the relevant fact that the fee receipts for having paid school fees and other documents for the expenditure incurred upon the children are produced by the first petitioner to show that she is sending her two children to the school and she is spending considerable amount of about Rs. 250/- each per month upon the second and third petitioners for their education. The second respondent should have taken into consideration of these relevant and important aspects of the case of the petitioners at the time of passing the impugned order which was pleaded before the family court and with regard to salary of the first respondent at Rs. 250/- each per month upon the second and third petitioners for their education. The second respondent should have taken into consideration of these relevant and important aspects of the case of the petitioners at the time of passing the impugned order which was pleaded before the family court and with regard to salary of the first respondent at Rs. 6,000/- p. m. further, the family court has not considered the documents referred to above at the time of granting the interim maintenance and no reasons are assigned by it in support of the impugned order. Further, it is a well-established principle of law that this court can take into consideration the subsequent events that had taken place from the date of passing of the order at the time of moulding the relief in favour of the petitioners. The first respondent being the lecturer of a government college is getting university grants commission pay scale of about Rs. 10,000/- as on today. This court by its interim order dated 3-2-1998, after examining the impugned order challenged in the writ petition for the reasons stated at paragraph 3 granted interim order which reads thus:"the usual standard adopted by courts in awarding maintenance to a separated spouse is l/5th of the salary/income of the earning spouse. Going by that standard assuming the respondent's income to be Rs. 6,000/- p. m. only, the petitioner-wife would be entitled to a minimum of Rs. 1,200/- p. m. superadded to that should be a further sum of Rs. 800/- which in my opinion is the minimum that the other two petitioners are entitled keeping in view the expenses being incurred by the first petitioner on their education". ( 11 ) IN my considered view, after perusing the impugned order passed by the second respondent, it has failed to exercise its discretionary power properly after considering all the relevant facts and documents produced by the petitioners at the time of considering the interim maintenance application having regard to the facts pleaded before it and the material documents produced in justification of their claim. It should have granted reasonable amount out of the income of the first respondent- husband to the first petitioner and also adequate maintenance to the other petitioners-children for their maintenance and educational purpose having regard to the facts of this case, but the family court has not awarded reasonable interim maintenance in accordance with well- established norms and guidelines laid down by the apex court and this court for awarding interim maintenance for which they are entitled in law. Further, this petition is pending before this court for the last five years. During the pendency of this petition, subsequent events have taken place which are required to be taken into consideration by this court for granting the reliefs in favour of the petitioners in this case. The first respondent's salary has been enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- from Rs. 6,000/ -. Therefore, in my considered view, awarding of interim maintenance by the family court in favour of the petitioners is not in accordance with law and exercise of its discretionary power is not proper as it has not considered the undisputed facts regarding the salary of the first respondent, the minimum need for the maintenance of the first petitioner and for the educational purposes of the other petitioners-children at the time of awarding maintenance. The family court should have awarded reasonable interim maintenance in favour of the petitioners keeping in view that the two children are living with the first petitioner- mother and they have been studying in the schools. For the reasons stated supra, the observations and the law laid down by the division bench of this court at paragraph 9 in the case of Smt. Shashi sharma, supra, squarely applies to the facts of this case as the family court has not exercised its discretionary power properly though the petitioners have made out a strong prima facie case by producing relevant documents for exercise of its discretionary power and awarding interim maintenance by the family court in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, this court has to exercise its plenary and discretionary power to do complete Justice to the parties in the case having regard to the undisputed facts and the material documents on record, which are in favour of the petitioners. For the reasons stated supra, the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of interim maintenance. Therefore, this court has to exercise its plenary and discretionary power to do complete Justice to the parties in the case having regard to the undisputed facts and the material documents on record, which are in favour of the petitioners. For the reasons stated supra, the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of interim maintenance. Hence, the submissions made on behalf of the first respondent placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the division bench of this court referred to supra, is not well-founded as the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition cannot be accepted. In my considered view, it is a proper and fit case for exercise of this court's discretionary and supervisory power reviewing the impugned order judicially under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India having regard to the facts, the documents produced by the petitioners and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in tata cellular's case, referred to supra. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons I am in- clined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the family court. For the reasons stated supra, the petitioners must succeed. Hence, i pass the following order: the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the family court is modified by awarding Rs. 2,750/- in place of Rs. 1,200/- in favour of the first petitioner and further, the first respondent is directed to pay Rs. 500/- per month to each one of the petitioners-children. It is also open to the petitioners to file an interim application before the family court if she seeks further enhancement on the basis of the correct salary of the first respondent that is being drawn by the first respondent as on date. The enhanced payment of interim maintenance amount as modified in this order will have to be paid to the petitioners from this date. Further, this court directs the first respondent to pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 250/- to each one of the children from the date of application. The first respondent is directed to comply with this order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The arrears of enhanced interim maintenance amount shall be paid by the first respondent as directed by this court within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The first respondent is directed to comply with this order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The arrears of enhanced interim maintenance amount shall be paid by the first respondent as directed by this court within three months from the date of receipt of this order. --- *** --- .