ORDER :

K.S. Mudagal, J.

1. The respondent has filed the above application for release of Rs. 4,32,000/- deposited before the trial Court in her favour.

2. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. The respondent filed Crl. Misc. No. 206/2011 against the petitioner before the trial Court under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the DV Act' for short) seeking monetary relief and custody order as contemplated under Sections 20 and 21 of the DV Act on the ground that she was subjected to domestic violence in the hands of the petitioner.

3. The trial Court by order dated 11.04.2016 partly allowed the said petition, awarded Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent and her children as maintenance and house rent. The petitioner was also restrained from taking away the children from her custody and committing domestic violence.

4. The petitioner challenged the said order of the trial Court before IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Crl.A. No. 19/2016. The First Appellate Court granted interim stay subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 4,32,000/- before the First Appellate Court towards arrears of maintenance. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the said amount before First Appellate Court.

5. Ultimately on hearing the parties, the First Appellate Court by the impugned order dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court. Further the First Appellate Court directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the trial Court with a further direction to the trial Court to release the said amount to the respondent wife.

6. Accordingly, the said amount is transmitted to the trial Court and pending in Court deposit. The respondent has filed the above application seeking release of the said amount.

7. Sri L. Rajanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner opposes the application on the ground that the petition was filed 10 years from the date of the alleged domestic incident, therefore the petition itself was not maintainable. In support of his contentions he relies upon the following judgments:

(i) Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab & Anr. : 2012 Cri.L.J.309

(ii) J. Srinivas vs. G. Dhanalakshmi, Crl.P. No. 2419/2009 DD 05.04.2013

(iii) Gurudev & Anr. vs. Jayashree, Crl.P. No. 11476/2013 DD 08.01.2014

8. Sri G.S. Pateel, learned Counsel for the respondent refutes the contention regarding limitation on the ground that Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is applicable only to the petition under Section 31 of the DV Act and not to the application under Section 12 of the DV Act filed for the reliefs under Sections 20 and 21 of the DV Act. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the following judgments:

(i) Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury : (2016) 2 SCC 705

(ii) Vikas and others v. Smt. Usha Rani & Anr., Crl.R. No. 3084/2016 (O & M) DD 17.04.2018

9. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The only question for consideration is, for an application under Section 12 of the DV Act whether Section 468 of Cr.P.C. which prescribes the limitation is applicable?

10. Relying on Section 28 of the DV Act, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that to file application under Section 12 of the DV Act, the Code of Criminal procedure is applicable. Therefore he submits that Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is applicable. Section 28(1) of the DV Act relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner reads as follows:

"28. Procedure.--(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)."

11. Reading of the above provision makes it clear that for the proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 31 of the DV Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable. Then he relies upon Section 468(2)(b) of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:

"468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of t