JUDGMENT B. N. Sapru, J. 1. THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 2. TREATING Gokul Prasad as a tenure-holder a notice was served on him. The Prescribed Authority in the proceedings under the Act found that he had 16.05 hactares of land. Consequently, 8.75 hectares of land was declared surplus. Smt. Panni Devi filed an appeal being Revenue Appeal No. 416 of 1975 of the Court of Illrd Additional District Judge, Basti. She claimed that she had been married to Gokul Prasad but had been divorced from him in the customary manner, the husband and the wife being Kurmi. She claimed that she was living in village puraine after the divorce and certain land had been given in her share. 3. IT appears that a civil suit No. 47 of 1958 Gokul Prasad v. Ram Narain, was filed in the Civil Court, Basti. That suit was a partition suit. In that suit, Smt. Panni Devi was arrayed as defendant no. 7. The suit was decreed. Certain property was allotted in the name of Smt. Panni Devi under the decree. The plots which came to the share of Smt. Panni Devi, were situated in village Purania. 4. THE District Judge found that evidence had been led on behalf of the respondent, Smt. Panni Devi, that there was a custom of divorce in her community. No evidence to the contrary was led by the State. THE right to customary divorce is preserved under section 29 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. Consequently, the divorce cannot be held to be illegal. THE District Judge held the divorce to be legal. He accordingly found that Smt. Panni Devi was not the wife of Gokul Prasad and consequently the land of which she was the tenure-holder, could not be clubbed with the land in the tenure of Gokul Prasad. THE appeal by Smt. Panni Devi was allowed. It was directed that the plots in village Purania should not be treated as in the tenure of Gokul Prasad. The State is aggrieved and has filed this writ petition, 5. THE appeal by Smt. Panni Devi was allowed. It was directed that the plots in village Purania should not be treated as in the tenure of Gokul Prasad. The State is aggrieved and has filed this writ petition, 5. THE learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State has argued that since there was no decree for judicial separation, therefore, Smt. Panni Devi continued to be a member of the family of Gokul Prasad within the meaning of Section 3 (7) of the Act. He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Thakur Ummed Singh v. State of U. P., 1980 ACJ 244 where a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the meaning of the term 'judicially separated' in section 3 (7) of the Act meant a decree for judicial separation. 6. THE claim of Smt. Panni Devi is not that she is judicially separated. THE claim is that she is not the wife of Gokul Prasad any more. Once there was a divorce between the husband and the wife, she ceased to be the wife of Gokul Prasad. Consequently, Smt. Panni Devi cannot be treated as a member of the family of Gokul Prasad. Section 3 (7) of the Act does not mean that the land of a divorced wife is to be clubbed with the land in the tenure of her ex-husband. In the circumstances, there is no error of law in the judgment of the District Judge. 7. THE writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.