1. The only question in dispute in this Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is whether the Court has power under Section 21 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, to refer for the decision of arbitrators a matrimonial dispute. Mr. P. Somasundaram contends that the Court has no such power and that for reasons of public policy all such disputes must be decided by the Court itself. In support of his contention he has referred to the decisions in Kalabatu v. Prabh Dial (1918) 45 I.C. 163, Malka v. Sardar A.I.R. 1929 Lah. 394 and Nattu v. Sarnun A.I.R. 1933 Lah. 532, but none of these decisions lays down that any matter in dispute in a matrimonial suit cannot under the exceptionally wicle teems of Section 21 of the Arbitration Act be referred to arbitrators. In the first of the three cases cited objection was taken to the reference of the whole suit to the decision of arbitrators; and it was pointed out that although it was open to the Court to refer any particular matter in dispute to arbitration, the decision in the entire suit could not be delegated to the arbitrators. In the present case the proceedings of the Court have followed the procedure laid down in the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator, in an elaborate and carefully reasoned award, held that the circumstances justified the plaintiff-husband in asking for the return of his wife and he thought that the wife should be directed to return to him. After receiving this award the learned Munsiff formally passed a decree directing restitution of conjugal rights, and I am unable to see that there is in this proceeding anything which is outside the learned Munsiff's jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No authority of this Court is cited in support of the argument that arbitrators are not competent to pass an award in matters arising out of a matrimonial suit. The petition is accordingly ordered to be dismissed with costs.