JUDGMENT:- This is a petition by wife. She had filed application under Domestic Violence Act claiming various reliefs. Admittedly, she resides in a shared house which is purchased in the joint name of the petitioner as well as the respondent. 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.13. Amravati, decided the interim application in Misc. Criminal Case No.250 of 2007 which was filed by the petitioners. Learned Magistrate had granted monthly maintenance for children @ Rs.1,000/ - per month each and directed the non-applicant to pay the installment of the Flat which was jointly purchased by the spouses, regularly 3. The respondent carried an appeal in the Sessions Court, Amravati. In said appeal the respondent had prayed for grant of stay to the impugned order. By order dated 21-5-2010. the learned Sessions Court had granted stay of order of trial Court granting maintenance and ordering payment of installment. 4. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge has passed order, copy whereof is at Annexure-E whereby attributing fault to the husband - the appellant, the order of stay was vacated. 5. It is seen that Exh.5 was later on heard and by order dated 5-7 - 2010, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the following order. "1) The application is partly allowed. 2) The appellant and respondent No.1 shall go on paying installment of the flat to the concern Bank by equal contribution till the decision of appeal." [Quoted from page 41 of petition paper book] 6. Perusal of order discloses that the order is based on following facts: (a) The appellant is already paying Rs.2,000/ - towards maintenance to the children. (b) Admittedly, the wife is employed as a Teacher in Zilla Parishad and is earning salary . (c) The wife is the co-owner of the Flat rather is claiming relief that she is the absolute owner of the house. (d) The husband and the wife are joint owners. 7. In this background, the learned Sessions Judge found that instead of husband's alone paying the installment, the husband and wife both are liable to pay it, and has stayed and thereby modified the order passed by the Magistrate to that extent. 8. Heard Learned Advocates for both sides and perused the copies of documents forming part of paper-book. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. 8. Heard Learned Advocates for both sides and perused the copies of documents forming part of paper-book. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Upadhyay has orally urged that he was willing to pay his share of installment, however, the Bank did not accept it being only part of amount. 10. On perusal of record and on analyzing and testing the submission of both sides, this Court is of considered view that the sole reason recorded by the Sessions Judge for partly staying the order of payment is that the house is jointly owned and the wife too is earning. 11. It is a matter of fact that the order of grant of stay is in the nature of discretionary relief, nevertheless, the said order has resulted in interference in the order which was passed on merit. 12. It has to be noted that when the order passed in discretionary powers and jurisdiction results in super ceding the order passed on merits and after hearing when in interlocutory nature, it should be passed with great restraint. Moreso, particularly, when it relates to protecting the oppress class in the society, the woman and her children under her care, for whose protection, special enactment which had vested jurisdiction in the trial Court, was enacted. 13. Moreover, the parties were husband and wife and the husband had failed to make out a case of 'hardship' as understood by the doctrine which governs grant of stay in Civil or Criminal appeals. Husband's being fastened with a liability to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month more, does not in any manner result in grave and serious prejudice and hardship which would warrant staying the order of protection granted under the Domestic Violence Act, on urgent basis. 14. It is not shown that the applicant has made out a case for extra-ordinary hardship due to enforcement of interim order. It is also' not shown that compliance thereof was impossible for him. It ought to have been, but was not shown by the respondent that compliance of order passed by Magistrate would have led to irreversible consequences and hence was a matter of undue hardship. 15. Moreover, it would have been definitely possible for the parties to go with final hearing of their appeal. 16. In this background, writ petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. (a) Rule is made absolute. 15. Moreover, it would have been definitely possible for the parties to go with final hearing of their appeal. 16. In this background, writ petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. (a) Rule is made absolute. (b) The impugned judgment under is set aside. (c) Application for stay Exh.5 in Appeal No.71/2010 is dismissed. Petition allowed.