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 fact that the aggrieved persons and the respondent are living separately since 6.5.2011. It is also the admitted fact that there was domestic relationship between them prior to 6.5.2011. The aggrieved persons, in the mean time, initiated a criminal case for the alleged commission of offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act in G.R. Case No. 978/2011 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh at Rourkela. The said matter is still pending. The aggrieved persons also filed a case being C.P. No. 216/2015 and I.A. No. 85/2011 under Sections 18 and 20 of Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act before the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela, the same is still pending. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cause of action arose in the year 2011, but after lapse of more than three years, the aggrieved persons have filed C.M.C. No. 122/2015, which is barred by limitation. It is contended that as per Sections 28 and 32 of the Act read with Section 15(6) of the Rules, the provisions of Cr.P.C. is applicable. It is, therefore, contended that as such Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. is applicable to filing of the cases under the Act. Thus, it is argued that the limitation of filing of cases under the Act is one year from the date when the cause of action arose. Since the proceeding before the learned Magistrate has been initiated after lapse of more than three years from the date of cause of action, the case is not maintainable and the same should be dismissed.

4. Section 12 of the Act provides that an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person to seek redressal from the Magistrate having jurisdiction regarding reliefs referred under the Act.

5.Section 2(a) of the Act defines that an aggrieved person means any women who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.

6.Section 2(f) of the Act defines that “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

7.Thus, a simple reading of the aforesaid provisions show that the Parliament in its wisdom thought it proper to give protection to women who was in addition to live together in the present or in the past, in a shared hold house when they are related (i) by consanguinity or (ii) by marriage or (iii) by relationship in nature of marriage or (iv) on account of relationship of adoption or (v) they are related to each other as family members living toge