This petition is by the wife, who is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Court whereby the learned Sessions Judge in his appellate jurisdiction on the interim application of appellant/husband stayed the order of the Magistrate.

2. The learned Magistrate while partly allowing the petition of the wife filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence ct, 2005 (‘the Act’ for brevity), prohibited the husband from inflicting violence against the wife and further ordered, if any such violence is perpetuated, the concerned Police shall give adequate protection to her. That apart, the husband was ordered to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- till her life or until she marries again, along with Rs.5 lakhs compensation towards the injuries caused to her, mental, emotional and financial distress suffered by her. Further, he was directed to arrange a separate residential house and pay legal expense of Rs.1,000/-.

3. The aggrieved husband challenged above order in the appeal as provided under Section 29 of the Act read with Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘the Code of brevity). On his interim application filed under Section 29 of the Act, an exparte order is passed by the learned Sessions Judge thus:

“The execution of order dated 06/05/2015 passed by the MMTC-3, Bangalore, in Crl.M.C. No.164/2014 is stayed for a period of three months with the following conditions:

The Appellant shall pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to the Respondent from the date of order of the trial court till further orders.

Issue notice to the Respondent and call the L.C.R. Call on by 27/06/2015”.

4. Sri. A. Abhinav Ramanand, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that, the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to pass the interim order in an appeal preferred under Section 29 of the Act. Section 29 of the Act does not contemplate authority in the Sessions Court to pass an interim order staying the execution of the order appealed before it. Expressly the Legislature has not provided an avenue/platform to the Sessions Court to pass interim orders. There is clear embargo/restriction on the power of the Sessions Court from passing the interim order, staying the operation and effect of the order impugned. In Super Cassettes Industries Limited -vs- Music Broadcast Private Limited reported in (2012) 5 SCC 488, the question came up before the Apex Court about the authority of the Copyright Board to grant interim order in the absence of express provision in the Act. After examination of the law on the point it was held that, the language employed under the Copyright Act contemplates only a final order after hearing and after holding enquiry to see whether the ground for withholding of the work from the public was justified or not and there is no hint of any power having been given to the Board to make interim arrangements, such as, grant of interim compulsory licences during the pendency of a final decision of an application. Same analogy holds good for the present circumstances also. The right of appeal though given to the respondent, no such order to pass interim order/interim arrangement during the pendency of the appeal is provided; the Sessions Court in its appellate jurisdiction could not have passed interim order except disposing of the appeal on its merits.

5. In reply, Sri. M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, learned Counsel for the respondent/husband submits that, the order passed by the court below was only for a period of three months. The learned Counsel for the appellant has already submitted his arguments on the merits of the appeal. Without submitting reply argument in the appeal, this petition is filed without any reasonable cause. Though no express provision is provided under the Act, enabling the Sessions Court to stay the operation of the order of the Magistrate, it goes without saying that if during the pendency of the appeal, the order of the Magistrate if executed, then the very purpose of filin