Wife filed DV case against husband u/s. 12 r/w. 18, etc. of the Act
JMFC allowed ex party interim reliefs in application u/s. 23(2) of the Act filed by wife
Husband filed application u/s. 25 of the Act for modifications in the Ex-party-Order
JMFC (new presiding officer) allowed application u/s. 25 of the Act filed by the Husband (called Impugned Order) and fixed hearing on next date on the same application u/s. 23(2) of the Act which had been filed by Wife
On next date wife was absent and Husband made arguments on that application u/s. 23(2) of the Act and the matter was directly kept for Order on application u/s. 23(2) filed by Wife
In the meanwhile Wife preferered appeal in time u/s. 29 of the Act before District Court against Impugned Order passed by JMFC in application u/s. 25 of the Act filed by the Husband
Wife filed pursis before JMFC and informed that she opted for Appeal before District Court against impugned order passed by this Court on application u/s. 25 of the Act and hence it is reasonable to defer any hearing or order on application u/s. 23(2).
In spite of that JMFC passed Order on application 23(2) filed by Wife this order is detrimental to the interest of Wife
Whether JMFC should have not waited when it was informed that Appeal against the concerned impugned Order has been filed ?
Now what is the status of Appeal which was preferred to quash impugned order and consecutively to dircet JMFC to continue to hold good the aforesaid ex party interim order and not to hear opponent on application u/s. 23(2) of the Act filed by wife .