V V PUSHPAKARAN Vs. P K SAROJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Appellant Pushpakaran, belonging to Chenganacherry, married respondent Sarojini from Adimali on 5-2-1976. Their marital life was not happy. Sarojini moved the S.N.D.P. Branch at Aladi on 9-11-1978 by Ext. B1 application to get a divorce. The S.N.D.P. Branch contacted the Malanad S.N.D.P. Union, which contacted the Cheganacherry S.N.D.P. Union Though the Perunna S.N.D.P. Branch, appellant was requested to go over to Kattappana for a settlement on 7-1-1979. Appellant went there and had a discussion, which resulted in Ext. A1 arbitration agreement referring the disputes to some office-bearers of the S.N.D.P. for arbitration. The award is Ext. A2. It was made a rule of court in O.P. No. 24 of 1980 by the Subordinate Judge, Thodupuzha.

(2.) APPELLANT moved for setting aside the award on the grounds of misconduct and absence of an arbitration agreement. The application was dismissed. A.S. No. 387 of 1988 is against that order. A.S. No. 386 of 1988 was filed by him to set aside the decree on the ground that it is not in conformity with the award. Civil revision petition is against the decree in so far as it purports to be in conformity with the award. The two appeals were originally filed before the District Court, Thodupuzha. They were re-called to this court for being heard along with the civil revision petition.

(3.) THE appellant has a case that he was not a willing party to any arbitration agreement and that he was coerced to sign Ext. A1. THE trial Court rejected that objection for want of evidence. I do not think that there is any reason to interfere with that finding. But the objections of misconduct and want of a proper arbitration agreement were not at all considered. Ext. A1 does not contain any terms of reference or the matters to be decided. It contains only a general statement that the parties agreed to abide by the decision of the named arbitrators. What is the subject on which their decision is sought or what are the matters to be decided by them are not mentioned in Ext. A1. Even reading Ext. B1 application filed by the respondent as part of Ext. A1 agreement for arbitration, the maximum that could be said is that the reference was whether the marriage is to be dissolved or not and nothing else. Whether marriage has to be dissolved or not is not an arbitrable dispute. If it is not by consent of parties, divorce can be effected only by an order of a competent court, which operates as a decision in rem. Sanctity and binding nature of an award by a third party has its origin in the fact that the arbitrator was selected by the parties, who agreed to abide by his or their decision on matters agreed to, except when the arbitration is under a statute. That agreement on specified matters is the authority. Anything beyond that is unauthorised and not having the force of law except to the extent authorised by the Arbitration Act or any other law.