An order allowing an amendment is an interlocutory order and does not amount to a case decided. Appeals against interlocutory orders are not maintainable under the Family Courts Act.

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against order dated 07.02.2017 passed by the Family Court, by which the Judge, Family Court, has allowed the amendment of the plaint. This is an appeal, which is maintained under Section 19 of the Act, which reads as follows:

“19. Appeal.-(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.

(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) :

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991.

(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court.

(4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and as to the regularity of such proceeding.

(5) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court.

(6) An appeal referred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges.”

2. Therefore, it is clear that an appeal will not lie against an interlocutory order. We requested the learned counsel to address us on the issue whether the appeal is maintainable in view of the embargo against entertaining appeals against interlocutory orders.

3. We heard Mr. J.C. Belwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Rama Shanker Tiwari vs. Mahadeo & others, reported in 1968 ALJ 109. Therein, the question arose whether an order allowing an amendment application would amount to a case decided. The judgment is dated 15.12.1967. The court took the view that an order passed either allowing an amendment or refusing to allow an amendment is a case decided. The court, inter alia, took the view that, to hold otherwise, would be denying the parties relief where it is most needed and in the perpetuation of gross injustice as the parties will have to wait till the suit is decided on merits. The court also reasoned that the word “case” in Section 115 is a word of comprehensive import. An interlocutory order, which has a direct bearing on the rights of the parties, was found to be a case decided within the meaning of Section 115, though it does not finally disposes of the matter. The word “case” has received a liberal interpretation and it was found to have a very wide import. We may, at once, notice that the court was considering the scope of the word “case decided”.

5. In fact, learned counsel for the respondent also supported the stand of the appellant that allowing an amendment gives rise to a right of appeal under Section 19 of the Act.

6. We may also notice the judgment of the Bench of this Court in Rahul Samrat Tandon vs. Smt. Neeru Tandon, reported in 2010 (2) UD 4. Therein, the appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Act against an order passed on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court referred to the deci