JUDGMENT 1. - By this revision petition, a challenge is made to the orders dated 18.04.2012 and 15.06.2012 on a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 (in short "the Act of 2005"). 2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that initially non-petitioner, Shalini Sharma was granted interim relief along with daughter. However, it was set aside on his appeal and matter was remanded back. The court again considered the case for grant of interim relief and Rs. 2,000/- per month was granted to daughter and not to Shalini Sharma. Appeal was preferred by petitioner herein as well as non-petitioner Shalini Sharma. 3. The petitioner challenges grant of interim relief as no case for domestic violence was made out, whereas non petitioner, Shalini Sharma preferred an appeal to challenge denial of interim relief to her as well as for enhancement. The appellate court enhanced the amount of interim relief from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- without any basis. The petitioner was having good financial condition at the time of marriage, but due to cancer to his mother and subsequent sad demise put him in bad financial condition. He is not having sufficient fund to maintain himself even. Ignoring the aforesaid and without reason, the amount of commpensation has been enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 6,000/-. The appellate court should have allowed the appeal granting compensation when case for domestic violence is not made out. Accordingly, both the orders may be set aside. 4. Learned Counsel for non-petitioner, on the other hand, submits that a meagre amount of Rs. 2,000/- was granted by trial court. On appeal it was enhanced and compensation is granted to the non-petitioner, Shalini Sharma along with baby girl. It is looking to the financial condition of petitioner, thus, both the orders may not be interfered by this court. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. So far as order passed by the original court granting compensation of Rs. 2,000/- towards baby girl (daughter) is concerned, I am not inclined to interfere therein. 7. The issue now comes as to whether enhancement of amount from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- is justified or not? 6. So far as order passed by the original court granting compensation of Rs. 2,000/- towards baby girl (daughter) is concerned, I am not inclined to interfere therein. 7. The issue now comes as to whether enhancement of amount from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- is justified or not? I find that while enhancing the amount, no basis has been given other than showing the reason that baby girl would now be pursuing study though she is three years old at present. It is without taking note of the financial condition of petitioner because earlier financial position is not material for grant of interim relief. Accordingly, so far as acceptance of appeal preferred by non-petitioner for enhancement of amount is concerned, I do not find it to be justified. The non-petitioner has not been given interim relief for herself, rather amount given to the child has been enhanced. Accordingly, impugned order enhancing amount from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- is set aside. 8. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed in part. The original order passed by the court granting interim relief of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the daughter is maintained. However, enhancement of amount in appeal is set aside. The revision petition is disposed of with the aforesaid. 9. The further prayer is to direct the court below to decide the matter expeditiously. I consider it appropriate to direct the court below to decide the application expeditiously under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 and if possible, within a period of four months. This order or the order granting interim relief will not cause any prejudice to either of the party, rather court below will decide the matter based on material. The amount of compensation has not been paid as yet as stated by learned counsel for non-petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to pay the amount of compensation since 22.09.2010 within a period of two months. This disposes of stay application also.Petition Partly Allowed. *******