Hon’ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J.—This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.2.2015, passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2014 (Akhilesh Kumar Singh and another v. Smt. Shriti Singh and another) filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the Act 2005) arising out of judgment and order dated 30.8.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Varanasi in Case No. 1734 of 2014 (Smt. Shriti Singh v. Akhilesh Kumar Singh) filed under Section 12 of Act, 2005 rejecting the applicant’s application about maintainability of the case.

2. The brief facts, which are relevant for the purpose of this revision, are that opposite party No. 2 Smt. Shriti Singh filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 against revisionist claiming protection from domestic violence, residence order, monetary reliefs, custody and compensation order alleging that marriage was solemnized between revisionist and opposite party No. 2 on 24.11.2007. Illegal demand of dowry resulted strain relation between spouses. A wagan car, cash of Rs. 20 lacs, jewellery, colour T.V., home theatre and electronic goods were demanded. Some of the demands were fulfilled by the father of the opposite party No. 2 and on the assurance of Rs. 14 lacs the marriage was solemnized. After solemnization of the marriage opposite party No. 2 went to her in-laws house but she was harassed by the husband and the in-laws. On 1.3.2008 she was physically assaulted and the revisionist ousted the opposite party No. 2 from his house. Further allegation is that on 9.7.2008 opposite party No. 2 again came to the house of the revisionist with her father but they were not permitted to enter into the matrimonial home. Further it is alleged that on 24.1.2010 opposite party No. 2 again came to the house of the revisionist alongwith her father but revisionist and his other family member caused knife injury to opposite party No. 2 and her father. Thereafter an FIR was lodged under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. The medical was conducted by the doctors of the Medical Board and after investigation final report has been submitted. The opposite party No. 2 filed a protest petition which was treated as a compliant case and summoning order under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. was passed. It also transpires from the record that the discharge application, moved by the revisionist, was rejected by the High Court. It transpires from the record that preliminary objection was filed by the revisionist on 26.3.2014 alleging that proceeding under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 is not maintainable. Perusal of the preliminary objection reveals that three grounds were raised. Firstly opposite party No. 2 had left her husband’s house since long i.e. from 1.3.2008. Secondly, opposite party No. 2 is getting interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and further she had already moved an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act, 1955”) in a divorce proceeding for returning of the articles which is still pending; and thirdly complaint is barred by limitation provided under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. The Court below had rejected the preliminary objection. Thereafter an appeal was preferred against the dismissal of the preliminary objection before the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 6, Varanasi which was also dismissed, hence the present revision is preferred against both the orders.

3. It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite party No. 2 is living separately at her parental house since 1.3.2008 and an application under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 was filed in February, 2013, i.e. after five years of the alleged incident, so the proceeding is barred under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. in view of the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, 2005.