Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.—The Criminal Revision as well as the Writ Petition arise out of same proceedings, as such they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned AGA and perused the record.

Writ Petition No. 17658 of 2010

3 The facts ill short are that Smt. Veenu Anand wife filed an application u/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short the Act). In the aforesaid case she also filed an application u/s 23 of the Act for interim order. The said application was allowed on 20.03.2010 and a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month was ordered as interim maintenance. This order was challenged in appeal but appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of interim maintenance. These orders have been challenged by learned counsel in W.P. 17658 of 2010 on the ground that no evidence was recorded and it is not clear as to what was the violence caused to the applicant.

4. The argument is fallacious as the court was deciding an application for interim maintenance. Evidence was yet to be adduced. Section 23 enables the Magistrate to pass ex parte order on the basis of affidavit. Moreover court has gon