ORDER

03.12.20151. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Perused the records. The petitioner, who is the husband and father of the aggrieved persons who have been arrayed as opposite party nos. 1 and 2 in this application, has filed this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 14.09.2015 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Panposh at Rourkela on a petition filed by him for dismissal of the petition filed by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 as aggrieved party under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for brevity) on the ground that the order suffers from non-application of judicial mind and the learned Judge has not dealt with law governing the field and misread the purpose of such enactment.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner very emphatically submitted that in the petition under Section 12 of the Act, aggrieved persons have stated that on 6.5.2011 the respondent and his family members forced the father of the aggrieved person, i.e., opposite party no. 1, to take her back and finding no other way, the aggrieved person returned to her parents house in Rourkela. It is an admitted