JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the respondent. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 10-9-2010 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun (Annexure No.1 to the petition). 3. Perusal of record shows that respondent-husband filed suit against wife-petitioner under Section 13 read with Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce and seeking custody of minor child before Principal Judge, Family Court Dehradun. The petitioner filed written statement. Thereafter she sought amendment in the written statement and filed amendment application 103-Ka. The respondent filed objection 105-C. The Principal Judge Family Court, after hearing parties rejected the amendment application vide impugned order dated 10-9-2010, against which the petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection to the effect that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has an alternative remedy in view of provision of Section 115 of C.P.C. He contended that the High Court has no power to entertain a writ petition against an interlocutory order passed by the trial court. In support of his contention he has cited before me the case of Prem Bakshi and others Vs. Dharam Dev and others, (2002)2 Supreme Court Cases –2. 5. In the above cited case the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that Section 115(1) proviso clause (b) and Order 6 Rule 18 C.P.C. provides that revision is only permitted where impugned order occasions failure of justice or causes irreparable injury and Section 115 (1) proviso clause (a) provides revision where impugned order disposes of a suit or other proceedings finally. Order by trial court holding it has no jurisdiction to proceed or that suit is barred by limitation would amount to a final decision and such order would be revisable. 6. In para-3 of above cited case the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as below- ‘The proviso to sub-sections (1) and (2) with explanation was added by the amending Act of 1976. 6. In para-3 of above cited case the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as below- ‘The proviso to sub-sections (1) and (2) with explanation was added by the amending Act of 1976. By this amendment the power of the High Court was curtailed; the intention of the legislature being that the High Court should not interfere with each and every interlocutory order passed by the trial court so that the trial of a suit could proceed speedily and that only the interlocutory order coming under clause (a) or (b) of the proviso would be entertain by the High Court.’ 7. Thus, from the above it is quite clear that the High Court may exercise the powers of revision but it shall not vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where- (a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. 8. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no appeal or revision is provided against an interlocutory orders passed in proceedings of Family Courts Act. In support of his contention he has cited before me the case of Major Raja P. Singh Vs. Smt. Surendra Kumari, reported in AIR 1991 Rajasthan 133. In this cited case the question was whether against interlocutory order rejecting application for comparison of signatures and handwriting, an appeal or is maintainable or not. In para-11 it has been observed as under- “11. The object of this Special Law of Family Courts Act is to decide the matrimonial cases in a speedy manner. If, the order rejecting or allowing an amendment application will be termed as the case decided for the purpose of this Act and is appealable then, in ordinary course of law the decision of such cases would take years to come to reach the finality of the matter. In order to achieve the object of the Act i.e. speedy settlement of dispute relating to marriage, the purpose of expeditious trial is frustrated. In order to achieve the object of the Act i.e. speedy settlement of dispute relating to marriage, the purpose of expeditious trial is frustrated. That part if the legislature intended that all interlocutory order be appealable, it should not have used the word in S. 19 of the Act “not being an interlocutory order” and that is why no appeal or revision has been provided. This court in D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 107/90 Smt. Vijay Kaur v. Radhey Shyam decided on 1.8.1990 has held that the order relating to adjournment cost is an interlocutory order and appeal is not maintainable u/Sec. 19 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the order dated 6-4-1989 cannot be termed finally deciding the case i.e. the controversy being settled. The parties can agitate the point in appeal after final disposal of the case by the trial court. In our considered opinion, the allowing or refusing an amendment is an interlocutory order against which no appeal u/sec. 19 of Act is provided. In conclusion the preliminary objection is sustained and it is held that the order dated 6-4-1989 is an interlocutory order and no appeal lies to this Court.” 9. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that Section 10 of Family Courts Act lays down the procedure regarding application of provisions of C.P.C. subject to other provision, which provides that provisions of C.P.C. and any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings before a Family Court and Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil Court and shall have all the powers of such Court for purposes of suit and proceedings. Therefore, provision of Section 115 C.P.C. shall not be applicable in Family Court Act, which deals with the revisional power of High Court in the C.P.C. 10. Learned counsel also submitted that as per provision of section 19 of Family Courts Act an appeal lies to the High Court from every judgment or order not being an interlocutory order of a Family Court and a litigant can knock the doors of High Court under Article 226 and /or Article 227 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. In support of his contention learned counsel has cited before me the case of Ravi Saran Prasad alias Kishore vs. Smt. Rashmi Singh, reported in AIR 2001 Allahabad 227. 11. In support of his contention learned counsel has cited before me the case of Ravi Saran Prasad alias Kishore vs. Smt. Rashmi Singh, reported in AIR 2001 Allahabad 227. 11. In the above cited case the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court while dealing with Section 19 of Family Courts Act, has observed as under- ‘A conjoint reading of sub-section (1) and sub-section (5) makes us crystal clear that only one appeal lies to the High Court; that no appeal or revision lies except as provided under sub-section (1) from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court; and further that no appeal lies against such judgment or order which is interlocutory. It cannot be said that the Legislature has created an appellate form in 1984 against the orders passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act nullifying Section 28 of that Act contrary to the object of enactment of the Act as stated in the Bill. “ 12. In para –9 it has further been held that- “It is needless to clarify that it will be open for a litigant like the appellant to knock the doors of this Court under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India provided a suitable case for interference is made out against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.” 13. In the case of State through Special Cell, New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afshan Guru and others, reported in (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 641, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any Act of the State Legislature. The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and to seeing that they obey the law. The powers under Articles 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of justice. They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory order. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that this power of judicial superintendence, under Article must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. 15. They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory order. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that this power of judicial superintendence, under Article must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. 15. In the case in hand the petitioner/defendant wanted to implead material facts in her written statement by amendment application and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court by impugned order has rejected the application, therefore, in order to safeguard the interest of the party, writ petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India is maintainable, as no appeal/revision is maintainable against the impugned interlocutory order in Family Courts Act. 16. In view of foregoing discussion, admit the writ petition. 17. The respondent may file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. 18. List thereafter for orders.