Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. Heard Sri Khurshed Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mohd. Warish Khan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and learned AGA for the State.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by parents of three daughters who are respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, challenging the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.T.C., Court No. 2, Deoria in Case no. 4782 of 2020 (Hina and Others vs. Naimullah and Another) filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DV Act’) and further to challenge the order dated 08.12.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2022, by which the order of the trial court was affirmed.

3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as below:-

(i) Km. Hina, Km. Tabassum and Km. Tarannum filed a case under section 12 of the DV Act, claiming maintenance with the submissions in brief that their real mother Naseema Khatun died in February 2015 and that their father married another woman during the life time of their deceased mother and that now their father and step-mother have been mistreating, physically assaulting them and have also stopped them from pursuing their education;

(ii) The applicants filed an application for grant of interim maintenance.

The opposite side gave written objection, in which in essence, it was submitted that the O.Ps has been facing financial difficulties and that his daughters are healthy and have been earning independently and that they have been staying with him also and he has been bearing all their expenses;

(iii) The learned trial court heard both the sides and directed the O.Ps to pay Rs. 3,000/- per head, every month as interim maintenance allowance;

(iv) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, O.Ps preferred an appeal in which, besides other averments, it was submitted that his daughters are major, aged about 25 years, 22 years and 20 years respectively and this fact was completely ignored by the trial court, while granting interim maintenance;

(v) The appellate court passed a detailed order, dismissing the appeal.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the learned court below failed to consider the fact that their father is an old and infirm person, having no source of income and that he has already been maintaining the respondents and that the application for grant of maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, was filed at the behest of their maternal uncle. Since the death of his wife, his daughters were staying with him and the expenses were being borne by him only and that they are educated and have been earning by taking tuitions. The most important contention from the petitioners is that his daughters are major and therefore they cannot claim any maintenance.

5. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been enacted with an object to provide for ‘more effective protection to women’, guaranteed under the Constitution, who are the victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The use of the word ‘more’ before the phrase ‘effective protection of rights of woman’ is not an insignificant addition. The matter shall be further elaborated at appropriate places in the judgment.

6. Under the aforesaid Act of 2005, any aggrieved person may apply to the Magistrate for seeking one or more relief under the Act. Broadly the reliefs available under the Act are titled as “Right to reside in a shared household under section 17, Protection orders under section 18, Residence orders under section 19, Monetary reliefs under section 20, Custody orders under section 21 and Compensation orders under section

22.” Section 20 under which monetary relief may be granted to an aggrieved person has been worded as b