JUDGMENT : K.HARILAL, J 1. Since the aforesaid appeals are directed against a common judgment passed in OP.No.988/2017, OP.No.59/2018 and OP.No.914/2018 of the Family Court, Irinjalakuda and the parties are common, all the appeals are heard together and disposed of accordingly. 2. OP.No.988 of 2017 was filed by the husband by name Abhinay against the wife by name Lakshmi, seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. OP.No.59 of 2018 was filed by the wife against the husband, seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. OP.No.914 of 2018 was filed by the husband against the wife, seeking a decree for damages caused to him on account of the alleged defamatory statements made against him by the wife and the expenses allegedly suffered by him due to the conduct of the wife. 3. The Family Court has framed five points for determination and conducted joint trial of all the aforesaid cases. The points are framed differently and distinctly; but all the points are determined together and rendered the findings commonly under the heading “Points No.1 to 5”. We are of the view that the aforesaid manner in which the judgment has been written against the statutory mandate is under Order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XX Rule 5 of the CPC reads thus:- “5. Court to state its decision on each issue In suits in which issues have been framed, the court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefore, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit.” According to order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the courts have to state its decision on each issue, separately as to what is the purpose of joint trial and what is the manner in which the judgment has to be rendered after joint trial. Though Joint trial is not a method expressly provided in the CPC, it stands recognized and accepted by the Courts. The need for consolidation and joint trial arises, only when there is a common question of law or fact in all the suits between the same parties and when act or transaction, which gives right to different reliefs is common in all such suits. The need for consolidation and joint trial arises, only when there is a common question of law or fact in all the suits between the same parties and when act or transaction, which gives right to different reliefs is common in all such suits. The sole purpose of joint trial is to save the valuable judicial time and effort in conducting trial separately in each suit. But there shall not be a short cut method in framing of issues/points and determination thereon or in the manner of rendering judgment. The issues/points in each case must be framed and determined separately, as if each suit is tried separately. The decision in each suit, with reasons thereof, also must be rendered separately, as mandated under Order XX Rule 5 of the CPC. This can be done in one common judgment. 4. But in the instant case the points in different suits, claiming different reliefs, are seen determined together and rendered the common judgment, without showing the findings on each point and reasonings thereof, separately. The procedure adopted by the Family Court is illegal as well as deprecable. 5. In the above view, we are inclined to set aside the judgment at the threshold itself, without entering into the merits of the case and we do so. The common judgment under challenge in all the aforesaid appeals would stand set aside and remitted to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda with direction to the Family Court Judge to render the judgment afresh in the proper method and deliver the same. The judgment shall be delivered afresh within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to all the Family Courts, forthwith. This Mat.Appeal is ordered accordingly.