Cr.MMO 165 of 2010 08.10.2010 Present: Ms. Suvrata Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Sood, Advocate, for the respondent. Cr.MMO 165 of 2010 Preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent on maintainability of this petition. He submits that any order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is appealable. Learned counsel, in particular, refers the provisions of Section 29, which provides: “29.Appeal-There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later.” Learned counsel submits that the order in this case has been passed under Section 23 which though is an interim but nonetheless is order within the meaning of Section 29 of the Act supra. He places reliance on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ajay Kant & others vs. Smt. Alka Sharma 2008 Cri.L.J. 264, in support of his contention. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is not only an interim direction which has been challenged, but the petitioner seeks the quashing of the proceedings, more especially against Smt. Rup Rani, who according to the petitioner, is residing separately and therefore, no order can be passed against her. She places reliance on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mohammad Maqeenuddin Ahmed & ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 2007 Cri. L.J. 3361 that when no allegations have been made against a particular person or where such a person is by virtue of living separately incapable of treating the complainant with cruelty, no order can be passed against such person. Without entering into this controversy, this petition is disposed of with a direction that it will be open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 29 of the Act. Needless to say that the time spent in proceeding the petition in this Court shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation that is to say that the petitioner shall be given the benefit of time spent in this Court towards limitation. It will also be open to the petitioner herein to urge and argue all points as raised in this petition including the maintainability of the order passed against petitioner No.2 also. Petition stands disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith. October 08, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge