JUDGMENT K.N. Srivastava, J. - In the basic year plots nos. 392 and 253 in village Boura, Pargana Usait, Tahsil Dataganj, district Budaun were recorded in the name of Shrimati Mehendra Kumari opposite-party no. 4. The petitioner was recorded as Assami over the disputed plots. 'The petitioner filed an objection that on the date of the vesting, he become Adhivasi of the disputed plot and subsequently became the Sirdar of the same. He contended that the entry of Assami in his name in the basic year was wrong and should be corrected. The Consolidation Officer held that Shrimati Devki Kumari, who let out this plot to the petitioner was a disabled person and Shrimati Meh. endra Kumari who succeeded Shrimati Devki Kumari was also a disabled person at the time of the subletting, therefore, the petitioner acquired only an Assami right in the disputed plot. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) . The appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) . The petitioner then filed a revision which also met the same fate. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 2. The question which arises for a determination in this case is as to whether Shrimati Mahendra Kumari was a disabled person at the time the plots were let out to the petitioner. Shrimati Mahendra Kumari is the daughter of Shrimati Devki Kumari. She is the wife of one Raj Baha dur Singh. According to Shrimati Mahendra Kumari, she was deserted by her husband long before the date of the subletting and, therefore, she too was a disabled person. 3. On a suit filed by Shrimati Mahendra Kumari, the civil court passed a decree in 1959 that there was a judicial separation between Shrimati Mahendra Kumari and Raj Bahadur Singh. Shrimati Mahendra Kumari alleged that long before this decree, she was deserted by her husband and was living in a state of separation. The Consolidation Officer held that there was sufficient evidence to hold that Shrimati Mahendra Kumari was living separately from her husband. This finding was confirmed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who held that Shrimati Mahendra Kumari was separated from her husband long before the decree, which was passed by the Civil court, and, therefore, she was a disabled person as contemplated under Section 157 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This finding was confirmed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who held that Shrimati Mahendra Kumari was separated from her husband long before the decree, which was passed by the Civil court, and, therefore, she was a disabled person as contemplated under Section 157 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This finding was also confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who decided the revision. 4. Under Section 157 (1) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the words used are "separated from her husband. The question is, does it mean a judicial separation based on a decree passed by a. competent court or even such a separation where the husband failed to look after his wife and the wife was compelled to live separately. I am told that there is no judicial pronouncement on this point. It is a well settled principle of law that the words used in a statute should be given their ordinary meaning. One of the dictionary meaning of the word "separation" is "divorce without a formal dissolution of the marriage." The word "separate" means "to withdraw from each others; to become disunited." If by their voluntary act, the parties separate, severe their connections as wife and husband and the husband refuses to look after the wife and to maintain conjugal relations, the parties must be deemed to be separated. Had the legislature intended to mean a separation under a decree of court, the words would have been "judicial separation" instead of "separation." The very fact that no qualifying word was used before the word "separation" clearly indicated that the `separation' meant under Section 157 (1) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was a separation where the wife is forced to live separately for such a reasonable time which coupled with other facts and circumstances lead to the only inference that the husband has parted with her and there has been a disunion. 5. There was enough evidence in this case which leads to the only conclusion that Shrimati Mahendra Kumari was living in separation from her husband. In the will which Shrimati Devki Kumari executed in favour of Shrimati Mahendra Kumari, it was mentioned that for the last 12 years, Raj Bahadur did not look after Shrimati Mahendra Kumari and she was living in a state of separation. In the will which Shrimati Devki Kumari executed in favour of Shrimati Mahendra Kumari, it was mentioned that for the last 12 years, Raj Bahadur did not look after Shrimati Mahendra Kumari and she was living in a state of separation. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the ordinary meaning should be given to the word "separation" used under Section 157 (1) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. For the purposes of this section, the word "separation" does not mean a judicial separation. 6. The finding recorded by the consolidation authorities about the separation of Shrimati Mahendra Kumari from her husband Raj Bahadur Singh is based on evidence on the record. It cannot be said to be a finding without evidence. The judgment passed by the consolidation authorities are, therefore, neither illegal nor manifestly wrong. The writ petition fails. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy.