Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. By way of this revision, the petitioner Kapil Singh has approached this Court for assailing the order dated 31.8.2016 passed by learned appellate court being the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaur in appeal no. 2/2016 whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondent Santosh (the petitioner's wife) was partly allowed and the matter was remanded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur for fresh decision of the application preferred by the respondent herein under Section 12 read with section 6 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. The learned C.J.M. while deciding the Cr. Application/Case No. 323/2012 preferred by the respondent Smt. Santosh under 2 the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (here-in-after referred to as the Act of 2005) proceeded with the assumption that the application was time barred and rejected the same by order dated 12.6.2015 observing that the application, if any could only be filed within a period of one year from alleged commission of the alleged domestic violence. Chief Judicial Magistrate concluded that as the application was presented beyond the period of limitation, the same was barred by limitation. The respondent Smt. Santosh challenged the said order by preferring an appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 31.8.2016 and the matter was remanded to the trial court holding that the issue of the proceedings being barred by limitation could only be decided after permitting the parties to lead evidence. The said order dated 31.8.2016 passed by the Appellate Court is under challenge in this revision.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Sudhir Tak representing the petitioner placed reliance on following observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 16:-

"24. Submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar on the issue of limitation, in view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. 1973 that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be pre-ponderous in view of the provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 3, 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of this Court in Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762 and Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida and Others, (2011) 6 SCC 508."

5. He further placed reliance on the later Supreme Court judgment in the case of Krishna Bhatacharjee vs. Sarathi Choudhury and Another, 2015 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1287 and urged that the judgment in Inderjit Singh Grewal's case (supra) was approved in the later decision and hence the impugned order of remand dated 31.8.2016 passed by the Appellate Court is bad in the eye of law and deserves to be set aside. As per him the application filed by the respondent was time barred and the trial court was justified in rejecting the same by its order dated 12.6.2015.

6. Per contra learned counsel Mr. Sunil Mehta appearing for the respondent Smt. Santosh vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Tak and contended that no illegality was committed by the Appellate Court while remanding the matter to the trial court and as such the revision deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record.

8. The controversy raised in the revision hinges around the above referred observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal (supra). In case, the 4 observations do lay down a proposition of law then the argument of Mr. Tak appears attractive. However, this Court feels pursuaded to examine as to whether the observ