Judgment N. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under S. 19 of the Family Courts Act is directed against the order dated 11-5-93 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur. ( 2 ) THIS appeal has been filed on 21-5-93. A notice to show cause was issued on 27-5-93 and in the meanwhile the father respondent was permitted to meet the children but he was not allowed to take the children out of house of the appellant. The appeal has come up before us and as agreed the same is heard finally. ( 3 ) MR. Singhvi has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the misc. appeal on the ground that the same has been filed against an interlocutory order. He has relied on Major Raja P. Singh v. Smt. Surendra Kumari, AIR 1991 Raj 133 . ( 4 ) ON the other hand Mr. Champawat, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently opposed the objection raised and submitted that since the matter has already been finally adjudicated and no proceedings are pending before the Family Court, Udaipur. ( 5 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order so also the divorce order. ( 6 ) IT is no doubt true that under S. 19 of the Family Courts Act, no appeal lies against an interlocutory order. ( 7 ) IN the instant case on earlier occasion in a pending case No. 252/91 Kailash Chand v. Kusum before the Family Court, Udaipur, the respondent filed an application under S. 7-25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the children. The Family Court vide its order dated 18-1-92 dismissed the application. Against which a miscellaneous appeal bearing No. 47/92 was preferred before this Court which was also dismissed on 27-5-92. However, it was ordered that the respondent will be free to meet the children at the residence of the appellant with prior intimation to her on third Sunday of every month for two hours as per order dated 17-8-91 but he was not allowed to take the children outside the house. The respondent preferred a Special Leave to Appeal bearing No. 1795/92 and the same is pending before the Honble Supreme Court. The respondent preferred a Special Leave to Appeal bearing No. 1795/92 and the same is pending before the Honble Supreme Court. On 10-5-93, the respondent filed a fresh application mentioning therein that by the consent order dated 21-7-92 he was allowed to meet the children for two hours and the same may be extended and he may be permitted to keep the children during summer and winter vacations. Reply to this ap-plication was filed on 11-5-93. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the divorce petition was disposed of by the Family Court by a consent order on 21-7-92 whereby the father was allowed to meet the children viz. Abhishek and Nehar for two hours between 2. 30 to 4. 30 p. m. on 2nd Monday of every month while changing the day and place of meeting fixed earlier from Sunday to Monday and from house of the appellant to Court premises. Earlier, the Family Court as well as this Court did not allow him to take the children outside with him and the matter is pending before their Lordships of the Supreme Court regarding "to visit children and the children spending a portion of their school vacation". In view of this, the impugned order is not a step taken towards final adjudication and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order under challenge is an interlocutory order as nothing is subjudice before the Family Court. Therefore, the pre-liminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent has no substance. ( 9 ) SO far as the merits is concerned, Mr. Champawat has assailed the impugned order submitting that the Family Court has no jurisdiction. He has submitted that the learned Judge has erred in going beyond the consent decree of divorce without considering the reply and the provisions of S. 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. These contentions have some substance. A perusal of the application shows that no good reason has been mentioned in the application nor any material has been placed to reconsider the prayer afresh. The impugned order has been passed without knowing wishes and taking consent of the minors as provided under S. 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. These contentions have some substance. A perusal of the application shows that no good reason has been mentioned in the application nor any material has been placed to reconsider the prayer afresh. The impugned order has been passed without knowing wishes and taking consent of the minors as provided under S. 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned trial Court has neither considered the reply nor consider-ed the earlier order dated 18-1-92 whereby looking to the conduct of the respondent father the children were not sent with him and it has been held that the custody of the minors Abhishek and Nehar shall remain with the wife, however, he was allowed to meet the children but he was not allowed to take the minors with him which has been confirmed by this Court. Thereafter, in consent decree for divorce the same was agreed upon by both the parties. Under these circumstances, when the trial Court already restrained the father from taking the child with him and granted only permission to meet the child once on 2nd Monday of every month for two hours, there was no occasion for the Family Court to revise its own order and to allow him to see them twice in a month on 2nd and 4th Monday of every month from 10 a. m. to 5 p. m. and further allowed him to take the minors with him for outing. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is beyond jurisdiction and uncalled for, the same is liable to be set aside. That part, the prayer sought in the application for in-creasing the timing of meeting and for spend-ing the vacation with the children, which is almost same to the appeal pending before the Honble Supreme Court, wherein the follow-ing order has been passed :-"heard the learned counsel for the peti-tioner. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgement except the question dealing with the rights of the petitioner to visit children and the children spending a portion of their school vacation with the petitioner". Let notices be issued limited to this question"- - ( 10 ) IN view of this, on this Court also the impugned order cannot be sustained as the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application raising the same point without showing subsequent cogent circumstances and therefore, the order is bad. Let notices be issued limited to this question"- - ( 10 ) IN view of this, on this Court also the impugned order cannot be sustained as the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application raising the same point without showing subsequent cogent circumstances and therefore, the order is bad. In view of what we have discussed above, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. ( 11 ) IN the result, the misc. appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 1,000. 00. The impugned order dated 11-5-92 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur is set aside. Appeal allowed.