Arbitration in restitution of conjugal rights upheld where the court retained discretion; costs varied only within appellate limits.

A dispute in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was validly referred to arbitration where the court retained its own discretion and the award merely resolved disputed facts; on that footing, the award could be acted upon and the suit was dismissed because the marriage was held invalid. On costs, the District Judge could not vary the trial court's costs order against a defendant who had filed no appeal on that point. The substantive dismissal was maintained, but the costs order was corrected so that each party bore its own costs at trial, while the plaintiff remained liable for the defendant's appellate costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the dispute in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights could be referred to arbitration and the court could act on the award while reserving its discretion; (ii) whether the District Judge was justified in varying the order as to costs when no appeal had been filed by the defendant on that question.

Issue (i): whether the dispute in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights could be referred to arbitration and the court could act on the award while reserving its discretion.

Analysis: The dispute was referred to arbitration by the parties, and the award held the marriage to be invalid. The suit for restitution of conjugal rights was consequently dismissed. The distinction was drawn from an earlier case where the court had delegated its discretionary function directly to the arbitrator. Here, the court retained its discretion and the award merely resolved the disputed facts; in that setting, the reference to arbitration was treated as lawful.

Conclusion: The reference to arbitration was valid, and the dismissal of the suit on the basis of the award was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the District Judge was justified in varying the order as to costs when no appeal had been filed by the defendant on that question.

Analysis: The trial court had directed the parties to bear their own costs. Since only the plaintiff appealed and the defendant had not challenged the costs order, the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to impose the defendant's trial-court costs on the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The costs order was modified so that each party bore its own costs in the trial court, while the plaintiff remained liable for the defendant's costs in the appellate courts.

Final Conclusion: The substantive dismissal of the suit was maintained, but the costs order was corrected in favour of the appellant to the limited extent stated.

---