Is it necessary for a wife to demonstrate a ‘sufficient cause for living separately’ from her husband in cases of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)?

The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, ruled that maintenance cases under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, do not necessitate proof of a valid reason for living apart.

In the case of Smt. Renuka & Ors. v Sri Venkatesh, the bench led by Justice C M Poonacha clarified that if the marital relationship is acknowledged and the wife resides apart from the husband,

. applies. The trial courts need not establish the adequacy of reasons for the wife’s separation when determining maintenance petitions.

The court, citing Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., noted that maintenance proceedings can be initiated if there’s evidence of ‘neglect’ or ‘refusal to maintain’.

The bench clarified that such proceedings don’t mandate proof of a valid reason for living apart. The court emphasized that Section 125 outlines a summary process where showcasing the husband’s negligence or refusal to provide maintenance to the wife suffices. The requirement for demonstrating a sufficient cause for living separately is not a prerequisite, as per the court’s observation.

Does the court possess the jurisdiction to alter or modify an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?

Supreme Court Bench Consisting of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta in Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company vs Union of India | 2023 said that a court, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, has no power to modify an arbitration award.

The court’s jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act is confined, permitting interference only in cases of patent illegality that affects the core issue, not trivial matters. The tribunal’s reasonable interpretation of contract terms isn’t grounds for setting aside an award. Denial of natural justice is another valid ground. On appeal, Section 37 provides a narrower scope for reviewing upheld or substantially upheld awards under Section 34[The court is powerless to modify the award and can only set aside partially, or wholly, an award on a finding that the conditions spelt out under Section 34 have been established ].

Does the possibility of an alternative view regarding the facts or interpretation of a contract alone suffice to set aside an arbitration award?

The Supreme Court holds that arbitration awards cannot be annulled solely due to the mere possibility of an alternative interpretation of contract facts. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is invoked to examine if the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision is unreasonably irrational.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala observed in Konkan Railway Corporation Limited vs Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking | 2023 that under Section 37 of the Act, the court’s intervention in reviewing an order to set aside or uphold an award is confined to the same grounds as those in Section 34 challenges. This jurisdiction differs from standard appellate authority. The bench noted this distinction when granting the appeal.

In its application of Section 37 of the Act, the Court is primarily concerned with the jurisdiction exercised by the Section 34 Court in addressing challenges to the Arbitral Award. Section 34 jurisdiction aims to assess if the Arbitral Tribunal’s perspective is unduly unreasonable or arbitrary, without entertaining the reevaluation of the contract based on an alternate viewpoint. Given that this principle governs Section 34 jurisdiction, a Division Bench under Section 37 cannot overturn an Award, let alone a Single Judge’s decision, merely on the basis of not fully considering all contract clauses. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in reinterpreting a contract clause while exercising Section 37 jurisdiction.