व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

S. IV. 4 15-18
M p 131 20-p. 141 l 16 ] MOTHER'S SHARE ON PARTITION 93
But if ( strīdhana ) has been given, one half ( of a share ) should be
given ( to the wife or wives ), since there is a text ( Yājñavalkya II 148 )
'but if ( strīdhana ) has been given, one should allot half' ¹. Ardham means
' as much as would, together with the strīdhana already given, be equal to
the share of a son '. But no share ( should be allotted ) to that ( wife )
whose ( strīdhana ) wealth is already in excess of the share ( that might
justly be hers ).
The same author ( Yājñavalkya II. 116 ) speaks of the absence of a
desire to take a share of the heritage on the part of a son who is able to
earn and who does not covet ( a share ) ·
The* separation of one who is able (to earn wealth ) and who does not
desire (a share in ancestral wealth) should be effected by giving a trifle
In the Mitākṣarā it is said that the giving of a trifle is ( prescribed ) for
the purpose of preventing his sons from claiming ( later on ) a share in the
heritage ²
In another smṛti ( Yāj II 117 ) the allotment of equal shares at a
partition after the death of the father is declared . ³
The sons ( i e the brothers ) should, after the death of the parents,
divide equally the paternal wealth and the debts
Hārīta says ' when the father is dead, the partition of riktha ( paternal
wealth ) is equal '
Yājñavalkya ( II 123 ) says ⁴
When the sons divide after the death of the father, the mother also
should receive an equal share
1 This is said with reference to the giving of ādhivedanika strīdhana to a wife when
she is superseded by the husband's marrying another woman Ardha means a portion
not an exact half In Jairam v Nathu 31 Bom 54 ( it was held in a suit by a Hindu
against his father and brothers that the step-mother was entitled to a share equal to that
of a son but that from her share must be deducted the value of the strīdhana received by,
her from her 'father-in-law or husband) Vide also Hosbanna v Devanna 48 Bom 468
and Hushensab v Basappa 34 Bom L R 1325 where, after referring to the Mayūkha,
it is said that the mother is entitled to a share on a partition during the father's life-time
as well as after his death
2 Vide Fakirappa v Yellappa 22 Bom 101 ( where after a 'grandson separated
from his grandfather and uncles the grandfather died leaving self-acquired property, it was
held that the sons who remained 'joint with the deceased were entitled to the whole of
the self-acquired property and that the separated grandson could take nothing.)
3 This remark and the verse of Yāj ( II 117 ) and the text of Hārīta are referred
to in Patil Hari v Hakamchand I L R 10 Bom 363 at p 366
4 These words ( of Yāj ( II 123 ) are quoted in Beti Kunwar v Janki Kunwar 33
All 118 at p 121 and it is said ' 'this in our opinion implies an actual division of the
family property i e a complete partition under which there is a division of interests as well
as separate possession We do not think that a mere severance of interest confers on the
mother a right to a share equal to that of each of the sons'. Vide 50 All. 532 'at p. 534 for
criticism of Colebrooke's translation of this' verse

• P, 100 ( text ).