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

94 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S IV 4 18-20
[ M. p. 44 ll. 16-30
Viṣṇu ( Dh S 18 34 ) says mothers are entitled to shares in accordance
with the shares taken by their sons In another smṛti ( it is said )
The mother who has no ( strīdhana ) wealth ( of her own ) should
take on a partition a share along with the sons
The meaning is that a mother who is possessed of ( strīdhana ) wealth
should receive only so much as will bring up her wealth ( strīdhana ) to an
equality with the son's share¹, while ( a mother ) whose ( strīdhana )
wealth exceeds the share ( of a son ) will not be entitled to a share
Vyāsa speaks of a share ( being given ) to the step-mother and the paternal-
grand mother
The sonless wives of the father are declared equal sharers and so also
the paternal grandmothers, all of them are declared to be equal to the
mother ²
By the word sarvāḥ (all) the co wives of the paternal grandmother also
are included
Yājñavalkya ( II 120 ) describes the mode of partition among the sons
of several brothers
Among persons ( claiming ) through different fathers the assignment of
shares is according to the fathers
The meaning is that, where ( for example ) one ( father ) has a
single son, another has two and a third has three the division ( among these
six cousins ) takes place by ( reference to ) the fathers only and not by
1 This remark is referred to in Savitribai v Laxmibai I L. R. 2 Bom 573
( F B. ) at p. 581 ( where it is said that a woman's stridhana is to be taken into account
in awarding maintenance to her )
2 This text of Vyāsa and the two verses of Yāj. quoted above ( II 115 and 123 )
were elaborately discussed in the recent Bombay case Jamnabai v Vasudev 33 Bom
L. R. 48 ( = 54 Bom 417 ) where following Sheo Narain v Janki Prasad 34 All
505 ( F B. ) at p. 509 it was held that in a partition between a Hindu father ( governed
by the Mitākṣarā ) and his son, the grandmother ( i. e. the father's mother ) is not
entitled to a share and that the text of Vyāsa might entitle the grandmother or step-
grand mother to a share when the re was a partition between her grandsons ( as was held
in Vithal Ramkrishna v Prahlad Ramkrishna I L. R. 39 Bom. 373 at p. 381 = 17
Bom. L R 361 and in Kanhailal v Ganga 47 All. 127 ) or between collaterals of
different degrees as in Babuna Kunwar v Jagat Narain 50 All 532 ( where the grand-
mother was given a share when the partition was between her son and a grandson by
another son ) or in Sewam v Haricharan 9 Patna 539 In Krishna Lal Jha v
Nandeshwar Jha 4 Patna L J p 39 the Court relying on the interpretation of Vyāsa's
text given in the V R and V C dissented from 34 All 505 ( F B. ) Vide also 8 Cal
649 and 31 Cal 1033 for an interpretation of Vyāsa's text which differs from the recent
Bombay rulings Vide 2 Bom 401 at p 501 and 573 ( F B ) at p 581 and 17 Bom
271 at pp 235-237 for quotation of Vyāsa as to the shares of the mother