Judgment : (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.) 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the learned 1 st First Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Arbitration Case No. 198/2024, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been rejected. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 11.04.2003 and two children, namely Ayan (elder son who is major) and Anaya (aged about 11 years) were born out of wedlock. He further submits that there were disputes between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 owing to which, they approached the Arbitrator, namely, His Highness Prince Aga Kha Shia Imami Islamic Conciliation and Arbitration Board for Central Northern and Eastern India, Yavatmal (Maharashtra) to resolve the said dispute on the basis of mediation and settlement. He contends that with the consent of the parties, a deed of divorce was passed by the Arbitrator on 07.01.2021 and a certificate was also issued. He further contends that according to Clause 11(d) of the agreement, the children would stay in Rajnandgaon (C.G.) till they attain majority. He argues that on premises of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, the parties approached the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon for dissolution of marriage and a decree was passed on 17.11.2021. He further argues that respondent No. 1 took away their daughter Anaya (respondent No. 2) from the joint custody of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 to Hyderabad without assigning any reason and therefore, the conduct on the part of respondent No. 1 is in breach of the agreement dated 07.01.2021. He avers that thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned Family Court for enforcement of the award dated 07.01.2021 by filing an application under Section 36 of the Act, 1996 but the learned Court below rejected the application. He further avers that respondent No. 1 knowing very well the conditions of the agreement took away the daughter/ respondent No. 2 to Hyderabad without any sufficient cause and thus contravened Clause 11 (a) of the agreement, therefore, the learned Court below ought to have executed the award. 3) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the material/ documents available on the record. 3) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the material/ documents available on the record. 4) A perusal of Clauses 11 (a), (d) and (e) of the agreement dated 07.01.2021 would make it clear that the children would remain in the joint custody of the petitioner and respondent No. 1, who will jointly be responsible for their upbringing and welfare. It was also agreed between the parties that the children would reside in Rajnandgaon until they both attain majority, but at the same time, in case the children have to move out of Rajnandgaon for educational purposes, then both the parties have a right to leave Rajnandgaon without losing custody of the children. The clauses discussed above are the conditions mentioned in the agreement reduced into writing with the consent of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 by the Arbitrator on 07.01.2021. 5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. Versus SBI Home Finance Limited & Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 532 while dealing with the term “ arbitrability ” has held that (i) the disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offences ; (ii) matrimonial disputes relating to divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody ; (iii) guardianship matters ; (iv) insolvency and winding-up matters ; (v) testamentary matters (grant of probate, letters of administration and succession certificate) ; and (vi) eviction or tenancy matters governed by special statutes are non-arbitrable disputes. Relevant paras 35 and 36 of the aforementioned judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:- 35. The Arbitral Tribunals are private fora chosen voluntarily by the parties to the dispute, to adjudicate their disputes in place of courts and tribunals which are public fora constituted under the laws of the country. Every civil or commercial dispute, either contractual or non- contractual, which can be decided by a court, is in principle capable of being adjudicated and resolved by arbitration unless the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunals is excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. Adjudication of certain categories of proceedings are reserved by the legislature exclusively for public fora as a matter of public policy. Certain other categories of cases, though not expressly reserved for adjudication by public fora (courts and tribunals), may by necessary implication stand excluded from the purview of private fora. Adjudication of certain categories of proceedings are reserved by the legislature exclusively for public fora as a matter of public policy. Certain other categories of cases, though not expressly reserved for adjudication by public fora (courts and tribunals), may by necessary implication stand excluded from the purview of private fora. Consequently, where the cause/dispute is inarbitrable, the court where a suit is pending, will refuse to refer the parties to arbitration, under Section 8 of the Act, even if the parties might have agreed upon arbitration as the forum for settlement of such disputes. 36. The well-recognised examples of non- arbitrable disputes are: (i) disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offences; (ii) matrimonial disputes relating to divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody; (iii) guardianship matters; (iv) insolvency and winding-up matters; (v) testamentary matters (grant of probate, letters of administration and succession certificate); and (vi) eviction or tenancy matters governed by special statutes where the tenant enjoys statutory protection against eviction and only the specified courts are conferred jurisdiction to grant eviction or decide the disputes. 6) In the present case, the petitioner filed an application before the Court below for enforcing a non-arbitrable dispute seeking custody of the child. Clause 11(e) of the agreement clearly states that “in case if the children have to go out of Rajnandgaon for educational purpose, then both the parties will have a right to leave Rajnandgaon without losing custody of children.” This clause specifically grants the right to respondent No. 1/ wife to relocate from Rajnandgaon to Hyderabad for better educational prospects of respondent No. 2/daughter. 7) Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. (supra) and one of the conditions of the agreement dated 07.01.2021, particularly Clause 11 (e), in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference with the order impugned. 8) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).