Point of Law : If the right to appeal is not been accorded to the children, relatives or any other person then the purpose of the Act, 2007 would be frustrated and rather this would be a denial of right to appeal to the person aggrieved.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel-III assisted by Sri Kuldeep Singh and Sri Y.K. Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated 24.02.2020 passed by Chairman, Appellate Authority/District Magistrate, Lucknow in Appeal No.20231 of 2019, under Section 16 of the U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2007) (Re: Indrajeet Sharma Vs. Uma Shankar Sharma), by means of which, the appeal filed by the petitioners have been dismissed by respondent no.1 on the ground of maintainability. He has further assailed the judgment and order dated 6th June, 2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Lucknow in Case Crime No.38 of 2018, under Section 5 of U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, whereby the petitioners were directed to evict the premises of Plot No.46, Seemant Nagar, Yashbagh Tum, Kalyanpur, Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that factual matrix of the case is that, the petitioner no.1 was being continuously harassed by the respondent no.3 even for food and lodging, and FIR bearing Case Crime No.0124 of 2016, under Sections 498A/ 323/504/506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act was lodged by petitioner no.1 against the respondent Nos.3 and 6 and other family members. Since the petitioner no.1 was being tortured for demand of dowry and, as such, under the compelling circumstances, the aforesaid FIR was lodged against the respondent no.1, who is the father-in-law of the petitioner no.1.

4. After the aforesaid FIR, a compromise was done between the petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.3 on 08.11.2016 and it was settled in the compromise that opposite party no.3 along with his family will reside in the house No.82, Sector-N, Aliganj and the petitioner was given a ground floor portion situated at Plot No.46, Seemant Nagar, Yashbagh Tum, Kalyanpur, Lucknow, which is about 600 square ft.

5. Since a compromise was entered in between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.3, as such, the Investigating Officer, who was investigating the matter in Case Crime No.0124 of 2016, submitted a final report on 12.11.2016 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Lucknow and, later on, it was accepted vide order dated 17th September, 2017.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further added that respondent no.3 is a retired Constable from the Police Department and is getting regular pension and has also got other post retiral dues, but despite the above, the opposite party no.3 had intentionally started to torture and harass the petitioners, while violating the terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise deed dated 08.11.2016. The respondent no.3 submitted an application under Section 5 of the Act, 2007 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar for evicting the petitioners from the House No.46 situated at Seemant Nagar, Yashbagh Tum, Lucknow and he did not bother that petitioners are his son and daughter-in-law and even the legal successors of his property, and they have no any other house or place for living.

7. After the aforesaid application instituted before the Opposite Party No.2, the notices were issued for calling explanation/written statement in the case pending before respondent no.2 and it has also been mentioned that prior to the notice, several other notices were issued, though petitioners submitted that the same were not served upon them.

8. Petitioner no.1 had also submitted an application before the District Magistrate, Lucknow on 22nd May, 2019, wherein, it was prayed that case pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate may be transferred before any other competent authority, but it was neither heard nor any action has been