LexJEET SINGH ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E JEET SINGH ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. NOVEMBER 25, 1992 [KULDIP SINGH, V. RAMASW AMI AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960: Section 3(7")-'ludicially Separated' wife-Settleme11t or compromise ofseparation entered into between ltusba11d and wife before Nyaya Panchayat constituted under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947-Whether amounts to judicial separa- tion-Wliether Nyaya Panchayat has jurisdiction under the Panchayat Raj Act. to decide matrimonial matters-Land transfe"ed to wife pursuant to the com- promise-Wliether to be treated as belonging to the family of te11ure holder. U.P. Panchayat Raj Act; 1947: Sections 64 and 82-Wlzetlter confer jurisdiction 011 Nyaya Panchayat to decide matrimonial matiers. Hindu MarriageAct, 1955: Section JO-Judicial Separation-Effect of The appellant in the first of the two appeals had two wives, the appellant in the second of the appeals being the first wife. The first wife filed a criminal complaint against her husband, under Sections 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings they entered into compromise before a Nyaya Panchayat constituted under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the same was F recorded by the Adalat Nyaya Panchayat. According to the settlement, some lands were to be transferred in favour of the first wife and the relationship of husband and wife between the two appellants would be deemed to have ceased to exist, and the first wife would get the criminal G case dismissed. In pursuance of the consent order, the father of appellant-husband executed a sale deed in favour of his daughter-in-law, the appellant-first wife, conveying two Bhumidhari plots. In the proceedings taken under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on H Lan'd lloldings Act, 1960, the Ceiling Authorities included the aforesaid 246 JEETSINGH v. STAJ"EOFU.P. 247 plots in the. holding of 1he= husband as the land belonging to his wife A iJacludible in the holding-of' her husband. Both the appellants objecteo to the inclusion Qf the land in the holding of the husband on the ground th.at the first-wife was a judicially separated wife and therefore, it could not be included in the holding of the husband. The Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act rejected these contentions. Both the appellants filed separate appeals before the District Judge, who dismissed the same taking the view that the consent order made by the Nyaya Panchayat would not make the first wife a judicially separated wife. B The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the two appel- lants on the ground that since the Nyaya Panchayat had no jurisdiction to C deal with matrimonial or divorce cases, and by consent of parties no jurisdiction also could be vested in it, the first wife could not be held to be a judicially separated wife, on the basis of the consent order made by the Nyaya Panchayat. D Dismissing the appeals preferred by the husband and the first wife, this Court HELD: 1.1. The intention of the provision in Section 2(7) of the U.J>. Imposition of Land Holdings Act, 1960 is that a wife who is judicially separated shall have a right to keep the properties given to her. as and in E lieu of maintenance or otherwise during. her separate living and cor- respondingly it shall not be included in the holding of her husband. But in order to have the benefit of this provision, the parties shall prove that the wife is 'judicially' separated. The word 'separated' in the Section is qualified by the word 'judicially'. Unless the separate living was a judicially F ordered or recognised one, it would not qualify for exclusion u:ndet th:e provision. In the context, therefore, it means an act done in pursuanc~ of an order or direction of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is used in contrast to separate living by agreement of parties or at the intervention of mediators without the intervention of a judicial proceeding in a com- G petent court of law. (252-F; 253-A-C] Webster's New Twentieth Century DictionaT)i and Shorter Oxford Dic- tionary• referred to. 1.2. The con.sent order recorded b~' the Nyaya Panchayat would not H 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A be one within the meaning of expression 'Judicially Separated' in Section 3(7) of the Ceiling Act. The U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 does not confer any jurisdiction on the Nyaya Panchayat to decide any
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.