Judicial separation requires court-recognised separation; panchayat-arranged separate residence did not exclude the wife's land from ceiling holdings.

The expression "judicially separated" in Section 3(7) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 requires separation created or recognised by an order of a court or other competent judicial authority. Mere separate residence by mutual agreement, family settlement, or intervention by a Nyaya Panchayat does not satisfy that requirement, because the Nyaya Panchayat had no jurisdiction to decide matrimonial disputes and Section 82 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 did not confer such jurisdiction. The wife was therefore not a judicially separated wife, and her land was includible in the husband's holding.

---

---

Issues: Whether a wife living separately from her husband under a consent order recorded by a Nyaya Panchayat could be treated as a "judicially separated wife" within Section 3(7) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

Analysis: The expression "judicially separated" was held to require separation brought about by or recognised through an order of a court or other competent judicial authority. Separate residence by mutual agreement, family settlement, or panchayat intervention does not amount to judicial separation. The Nyaya Panchayat under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 had no jurisdiction to decide matrimonial matters, and Section 82 of that Act did not confer such jurisdiction where none otherwise existed. The Court rejected the broader view that any legally recognised separation, without judicial intervention, would satisfy the statutory exclusion.

Conclusion: The wife was not a "judicially separated wife" under Section 3(7) of the Ceiling Act, and her land was therefore includible in the holding of the husband.

---