The procedural differences between arbitration in **civil law** and **common law** jurisdictions are significant and stem from their distinct legal traditions. Here's a comparison of the main procedural differences:

---

### 1. **Role of the Arbitrator**

* **Common Law**: Arbitrators often act more like **judges**, with an adversarial system where the parties control the proceedings, present their own evidence, and cross-examine witnesses.
* **Civil Law**: Arbitrators have a more **inquisitorial role**. They take an active part in investigating facts, questioning witnesses, and managing the proceedings.

---

### 2. **Evidence and Discovery**

* **Common Law**:

* **Broad discovery** is allowed, including document disclosure, depositions, and interrogatories.
* **Cross-examination** is central to testing evidence.
* **Civil Law**:

* **Limited or no discovery**. Parties are expected to present only the documents they rely on.
* Evidence is primarily **written**, and oral testimony plays a lesser role.

---

### 3. **Witness Testimony**

* **Common Law**:

* **Fact and expert witnesses** are typically presented and examined by the parties.
* Cross-examination is rigorous and a key part of proceedings.
* **Civil Law**:

* The tribunal may **appoint and question experts**.
* Witnesses are rarely cross-examined extensively.

---

### 4. **Document Production**

* **Common Law**:

* Broad disclosure, often aligned with the **IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence**.
* **Civil Law**:

* Document production is **narrowly tailored**, and fishing expeditions are discouraged.

---

### 5. **Pleadings and Submissions**

* **Common Law**:

* Pleadings are often **short and general**, with detailed evidence produced later.
* Multiple rounds of submissions are common.
* **Civil Law**:

* Pleadings are **detailed and substantive from the beginning**, containing legal arguments and evidence.

---

### 6. **Hearing Style**

* **Common Law**:

* **Oral hearings are central**, often lengthy, with opening statements, evidence presentation, and closing arguments.
* **Civil Law**:

* Hearings are typically **shorter and focused**, with most arguments made in writing.

---

### 7. **Applicable Rules and Procedures**

* **Common Law**:

* Greater emphasis on **precedent** and detailed procedural rules (e.g., CPR in the UK or FRCP in the US).
* **Civil Law**:

* Proceedings are governed by **statutory codes** and tend to be more **formalized**.

---

### 8. **Costs and Fee Allocation**

* **Common Law**:

* Typically follows the **“costs follow the event”** principle – the losing party pays.
* **Civil Law**:

* May follow the **“loser pays”** rule, but courts or tribunals often have more discretion in allocation.

---

### 9. **Confidentiality**

* Generally, arbitration is confidential in both systems, but **common law jurisdictions** may have **more litigation over confidentiality breaches** due to broader access to court records.

---

### 10. **Flexibility and Hybridization**

* **Modern trend**: International arbitration often blends both traditions, creating a **hybrid model** (e.g., through ICC or LCIA Rules), incorporating features from both civil and common law.

---

Would you like a comparative table or citation to support this analysis (e.g., IBA Guidelines or UNCITRAL Notes)?

The **Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA)**, while primarily focused on the regulation of marriage and divorce among Hindus, also contains provisions related to **custody** and **maintenance** of children born from the marriage. However, these provisions are **limited in scope** and are supplemented by other laws such as the **Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956** and **Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)**.

Here is how the **HMA addresses custody and maintenance**:

---

### 1. **Custody of Children – Section 26, HMA**

* **Section 26** specifically deals with **custody, maintenance, and education of minor children**.
* The court may pass **interim orders and final orders** regarding:

* Custody
* Maintenance
* Education
* This can be done **at the time of passing a decree** for:

* Judicial separation
* Divorce
* Nullity of marriage

**Key Features**:

* The **paramount consideration** is the **welfare of the child**.
* The court has discretion to modify or revoke its orders at any time.
* The court may also issue **interim orders** for custody or maintenance during the pendency of proceedings.

**Judicial Insight**:

> *In the case of **Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma**, (2015) 8 SCC 318, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the welfare of the child is the sole and paramount consideration in custody matters.*

---

### 2. **Maintenance of Children – Section 26 (read with Section 24 and 25)**

* **Section 26** allows the court to order maintenance for children.
* Although **Sections 24 and 25** of the HMA deal with maintenance to spouses, they can be interpreted to indirectly support maintenance obligations related to children as part of overall family responsibility.

* **Section 24**: Interim maintenance during the proceedings.
* **Section 25**: Permanent alimony and maintenance, which may include support for children in some cases.

---

### 3. **Supplementary Legal Framework**

Because the HMA does not provide a comprehensive scheme for child custody and maintenance, the following laws are often invoked:

#### a. **Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA)**

* Recognizes the father as the natural guardian, but the **mother is also a natural guardian** for minors (especially for children below 5 years).
* Welfare of the child is the overriding consideration.

#### b. **Section 125, CrPC**

* Provides for **maintenance of minor children (legitimate or illegitimate)** who are unable to maintain themselves.
* This applies irrespective of religion, providing a **quicker remedy** than personal laws.

---

### Summary Table

| **Aspect** | **Provision under HMA** | **Key Principle** |
| ------------------ | --------------------------------- | --------------------------------- |
| Custody | Section 26 | Welfare of the child is paramount |
| Maintenance | Section 26 (with Section 24 & 25) | Court discretion, interim/final |
| Interim Relief | Section 24 | During proceedings |
| Modification Power | Section 26 | Orders can be changed at any time |

---

### Conclusion

The HMA provides **basic provisions** for custody and maintenance of children (Section 26), but it is not a standalone statute for these issues. Courts often rely on the **HMGA and CrPC** to ensure a **child-centric, welfare-oriented approach**.

Would you like a case law list or sample language for a petition under Section 26 HMA?

The main procedural differences between arbitration in civil law and common law jurisdictions are:
1. In civil law systems, arbitrators often take an active role in managing the case and gathering evidence, while in common law systems, the parties generally drive the process, and arbitrators act more like neutral judges.
2. Civil law jurisdictions typically limit or avoid discovery, relying heavily on written evidence. In contrast, common law systems allow broader discovery, including document exchange and witness cross-examination.
3. Proceedings in civil law countries emphasize written submissions and may have minimal oral hearings, whereas common law arbitrations place greater importance on oral arguments and live testimony.
4. Civil law relies on codified statutes, with little use of precedent, while common law systems give weight to previous judicial decisions and case law.
5. Legal costs in civil law arbitration are usually lower due to streamlined procedures, whereas common law arbitration can be more expensive due to extended hearings and discovery processes.

In civil law jurisdictions, arbitration is more inquisitorial, with judges or arbitrators playing an active role in gathering evidence. Proceedings are usually written, and there’s less focus on cross-examination.

In common law jurisdictions, arbitration is more adversarial, with parties controlling the process. There is greater emphasis on oral hearings, witness cross-examinations, and discovery.

Overall, civil law focuses on efficiency and written procedure, while common law emphasizes party autonomy and oral advocacy.