JUDGMENT :

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Heard Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Alok Tiwari, who states that he shall be e-filing his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent.

2. The instant revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against an order dated 29.5.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit in Matrimonial Petition No. 243 of 2012 (Smt. Komal Gupta v. Sudhanshu Gupta), whereby an amendment application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. filed by the revisionist for amendment in his written statement has been rejected.

3. The stamp reporter has reported that this revision is not maintainable.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of this revision, which as noticed above, is directed against an order passed by the Family Court.

5. The contention of Shri Rahul Sahai, counsel for the revisionist is that Section 10 of the Family Courts Act provides that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code shall apply to proceedings and suits before a Family Court. The Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have all the powers of such Court. This aspect requires consideration while deci