Arbitration of matrimonial disputes upheld where statute conferred wide power and no jurisdictional error justified revision.

A matrimonial dispute could validly be referred to arbitration under the wide terms of Section 21 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, as no authority showed that such matters were excluded from arbitration. The Madras HC also found no jurisdictional defect in the trial court's reference order, so revisional interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not justified. The reference to arbitrators was therefore held competent, and the revision petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court had power under Section 21 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 to refer a matrimonial dispute to arbitrators.

Analysis: The dispute concerned only the legality of the reference to arbitration in a matrimonial matter. The award had been made after following the procedure under the Arbitration Act, and the court found no authority establishing that matters arising out of a matrimonial suit could not be referred to arbitrators under the wide terms of Section 21 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The court also found no jurisdictional defect in the trial court's action so as to attract interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Conclusion: The reference to arbitrators was held to be competent, and no revisional interference was warranted. The revision petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: A matrimonial dispute could validly be referred to arbitration under the statute, and the revisional court would not interfere where the subordinate court acted within jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A matrimonial dispute may be referred to arbitration where the statute confers sufficiently wide power, and a revisional court will not interfere absent jurisdictional error.

---