The main legal point established in the judgment is the clarification of the maintainability of the original petition under Article 227 and the applicability of appellate remedies. The court also emphasized the need for independent adjudication of conditions directing payment of educational expenses by the Family Court.

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.

1. In this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging Exts.P5, P5 (a), P5(b), P6(c), P5(d) and P6 orders passed by the Family Court, Attingal. The petitioner and the 1st respondent are husband and wife. Respondents 2 and 3 are the children born out of their wedlock. The 4th respondent is the mother and the 5th respondent is the brother of the petitioner. The original 6th respondent was deleted as per order in I.A.No.16220 of 2015. Evidently, 5 cases touching the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the 1st respondent are pending adjudication before the Family Court, Attingal. Two among them, O.P.Nos.2001/2013 and 1154/2014 were instituted by the petitioner. Whereas, O.P.Nos.89/2014, 68/2014 and 1371/2013 were instituted by the 1st respondent and the children. Due to default on the part of the petitioner in appearing before the Family Court and in prosecuting the cases, he was declared ex-parte in O.P.Nos.89/2014 and 1371/2013. So also O.P.Nos.2001/2013 and 1154/2014 were dismissed for default. O.P.No.68/2014 was decreed ex-parte by the Family Court. In all the cases the petitioner had filed applications either to set aside the order/decree declaring him ex-parte or for restoration of the original petitions, as the case may be, along with application for condonation of delay. By virtue of orders passed as per Exts.P5 and P5(a) to P5(d), the Family Court had set aside the ex-parte orders/ex-parte decree as well as restored the original petitions which were dismissed for default, subject to imposition of cost and other conditions. It is illustrated that, in all the said orders cost of Rs.3,000/- each was ordered. So also a condition was incorporated directing the petitioner to make payment of educational expenses to the children amounting to a sum of Rs.37,730/-. It is aggrieved by the conditions incorporated in the impugned orders, this original petition is filed by invoking the supervisory powers vested on this court. The petitioner is also challenging Ext.P6 order which is passed in I.A.No.961/2015 in O.P.No.1371/2013 through which the petitioner was directed to make payment of an amount of Rs.37,730/- towards educational expenses on or before 20.7.2015.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 had entered appearance through counsel and filed counter affidavit. A preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this original petition is raised, contending that all the six orders passed in different cases (5 numbers) cannot be challenged in a single original petition instituted under Article 227. In this regard attention of this court is drawn to a decision of this court in Preeti Yohannan v. Abraham K. Mathen 2012 (3) KHC 76). A learned Judge of this court in the said case held that, separate and independent proceedings like dissolution of marriage, declaration of guardianship, recovery of money, custody of minor child etc. even if between the same parties, cannot be sought to be transferred by way of a single transfer petition. It is pertinent to note that, petition for transfer of a case pending before a subordinate court is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Rules governing such petitions filed under Section 24 CPC is Rule 57 of the Civil Rules of Practice. But in the case at hand the original petition is not filed under Section 24 CPC. but the same is instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested on this court. The procedure for filing such original petition, which is coming within powers vested on this court by virtue of provisions of the Constitution, is governed only by the High Court Rules. There is no provision restraining a party from challenging two or more different orders passed by any subordinate court in connected cases in a single original petition, especially when the parties are more or less same. At the most the petitioner in such cases can b