PANKAJ BHANDARI,J. - (1.) Petitioner has preferred this Misc. Petition aggrieved by order dated 19.04.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bundi in Criminal Appeal No.59/2011 by which the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and the order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bundi granting interim maintenance of Rs.1000/- to the petitioner was set aside.
(2.) It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the Court below has erred in allowing the appeal of the respondent only on the ground that there was no report of the Protection Officer as contemplated under the Act.
(3.) It is contended that the appellate Court has further erred in allowing the appeal on the ground that the petitioner is living separately from her husband without any reason. It is contended that the reason for living separately was specifically mentioned in the application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is contended that the report of Protection Officer is not mandatory for deciding the application for interim maintenance.;