Interim appellate stay of a modified order revives the preceding ex-parte interim arrangement.

The respondents filed a petition against the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act).

On 23.02.2026, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pampore, issued an ex-parte interim order directing the petitioner to pay ₹18,000 monthly compensation and provide two rooms in the shared household.

On 23.04.2026, the Magistrate modified this order, directing the petitioner to provide rented accommodation instead of rooms in the shared household.

The respondents challenged this modification before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pulwama, who stayed the Magistrate's second order, effectively reviving the initial shared household arrangement.

The petitioner subsequently moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to challenge the appellate court's stay order.

1. Whether the Appellate Court committed a legal error by staying the trial court’s modified order, thereby reviving the initial ex-parte interim arrangement.

2. Whether the petitioner can bypass the appellate process and invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS while an appeal is pending.

Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which provides the statutory right to appeal against orders passed by a Magistrate.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.

The procedural principle that staying a subsequent modifying order naturally revives the status quo or the order that existed immediately prior.

The High Court found the petitioner's argument—that the Appellate Court erred in reviving the ex-parte order—to be "misconceived and flawed".

The court reasoned that when an Appellate Court stays a final interim order (dated 23.04.2026), it casts a "cloud" on that order, which legally restores the position existing prior to its passing, namely the ex-parte order dated 23.02.2026.

The court noted that the petitioner "rushed" to the High Court instead of contesting the merits of the appeal or filing a response before the Sessions Judge.

The court observed no procedural delay or irregularity by the lower appellate court that would justify the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.

The petition was dismissed and the Court held that the petitioner's proper remedy is to project his grievances and contest the appeal on its merits before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pulwama, with a direction to the Appellate Court to expedite the disposal.