Saroj Bhardwaj ( Smt ) and Another Vs. Additional Civil Judge and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 844 of 1984
Petitioner: Saroj Bhardwaj ( Smt ) and Another
Respondent: Additional Civil Judge and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 844 of 1984
Judges: M.M. PUNCHHI & K.S. PARIPOORANAN , JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 11, 1996
Head Note:
LAND CEILING
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960
Section 3(7) Separation in property with husband – If a judicial separation as contemplated by Hindu Marriage Act , 1956. Held that division in property was not a ” Judicial separation ” of wife.
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960
Section 3(7) Separation in property with husband – If a judicial separation as contemplated by Hindu Marriage Act , 1956. Held that division in property was not a ” Judicial separation ” of wife.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1 . The claim made by Mr. Bagga , learned Senior Counsel for the appellants , is that a wife who had separated in property from her husband , shall be treated to be a judicially separated wife for the purposes of Section 3(7) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act , 1960 ( the Act ) . The contention on the face of it borders on being ridiculous and has to be rejected outright . The mere fact that the husband and the wife had divided their joint properties in the year 1949 , did not establish that their matrimonial bond stood severed . In fact , at that point of time , Hindus could not in his fashion undo their matrimonial ties . The concept of ” Judicial separation ” , as understood to modern Hindu law , came under the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 . And it is in this context that the wife judicially separated , has been brought within the domain of Section 3(7) of the Act . The High Court was , therefore , right in concluding that the appellant ‘s mother was not a judicially separated wife of her husband . We , there-fore , find no merit in this appeal and order it dismissal .
2 . No costs .
1 . The claim made by Mr. Bagga , learned Senior Counsel for the appellants , is that a wife who had separated in property from her husband , shall be treated to be a judicially separated wife for the purposes of Section 3(7) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act , 1960 ( the Act ) . The contention on the face of it borders on being ridiculous and has to be rejected outright . The mere fact that the husband and the wife had divided their joint properties in the year 1949 , did not establish that their matrimonial bond stood severed . In fact , at that point of time , Hindus could not in his fashion undo their matrimonial ties . The concept of ” Judicial separation ” , as understood to modern Hindu law , came under the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 . And it is in this context that the wife judicially separated , has been brought within the domain of Section 3(7) of the Act . The High Court was , therefore , right in concluding that the appellant ‘s mother was not a judicially separated wife of her husband . We , there-fore , find no merit in this appeal and order it dismissal .
2 . No costs .
