Antony Dominic, J.

1. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Their relationship is strained and various proceedings are pending between them in the Family Court, Palakkad. These proceedings are O.P.No.117/2010 filed by the petitioner for divorce, M.C.No.313/2010 filed by the respondent for maintenance, O.P.No.675/2010 filed by the respondent for return of gold and O.P.No.604/2011 filed by her for return of money allegedly given at the time of marriage.

2. It appears that M.C.No.313/2010 was posted for evidence on 16/3/2012, when, on behalf of the petitioner, his power of attorney holder filed Ext.P1 application seeking joint trial of all the cases. That petition was opposed by the respondent. The Family Court considered the application and dismissed the same by Ext.P5 order. It is Ext.P5 order, which is under challenge in this O.P. The reason stated by the Family Court is mainly that separate procedures have been laid down in the Family Court Acts in respect of proceedings governed by Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, joint trial is impermissible. In this context, the Family Court has made reference to Sections 10 and 19 of the Act to justify its conclusion.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides.

4. Admittedly, the parties to the aforesaid proceedings are common. The evidence in all the cases will also be related and the witnesses are also likely to be common. Therefore, to avoid the possibility of conflicting conclusions, normally, the request for joint trial should have been accepted. However, the question is whether the request for joint trial is impermissible, in view of the provisions contained in Sections 10 and 19 of the Family Courts Act.

5. Section 10 of the Family Courts Act reads thus:

"10. Procedure generally.-

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the Rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before a Family Court and for the purposes of the said provisions of the Code, a Family Court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have all the powers of such Court.

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or the rules made thereunder, shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of that Code before a Family Court.

(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one party and denied by the other."

Reading of the Section shows that Sub Section (1) provides that any proceedings in the Family Court other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. As against this, sub Section (2) states that proceedings under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. initiated before the Family Court will be governed by the provisions of the Cr.P.C. After making these provisions, sub Section (3) has been incorporated to state that the aforesaid sub Sections (1) and (2) will not prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure for settlement of a suit or proceeding.

6. Coming to Section 19 of the Act, this Section provides for appeals and revisions. Sub Section 19(1) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the C.P.C. or in the Cr.P.C. 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. Sub Section 19(4) provides revisional remedy against the orders passed in respect of matters governed by Chapter IX of Cr.P.C.

7. In our view, none of these provisions can