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

S. IV. 5. 2-4 ] ADOPTION 107
M. p. 51 ll. 3-23 ]
simply conveys the relation between an appellation ( samjñā, here dattaka )
and the object denoted by it and it does not lay down ( as a vidhi, a positive
rule or injunction ) the giving ( of a son in adoption ) on the occasion of
distress.
As to what the same writer ( Vijñāneśvara ) says on the subject of
marriage, viz ' in acting contrary to the prohibition against ( marrying ) a
sickly girl and the like, one runs counter only to seen results, but the status
of being a ( legally married ) wife does follow ', that dictum also is refuted
by this very reasoning ¹
Sadṛśam ( in Manu 9 168 ), according to Medhātithi², means
' equal in family and qualities ' and not by caste and hence even one of the
kṣatriya class and the like may be a dattaka ( adopted ) son of a brā-
hmaṇa and the like According to Kullūkabhaṭṭa ³ sadṛśam means
' equal by caste ' And this ( view of Kullūka ) is proper, since Yājñavalkya,
after beginning the enumeration of all the twelve sons in the words ' the
aurasa is one born of the legally married wife ' ( II 128 ), concludes with the
words ' this rule has been promulgated by me as regards sons of the same
caste ( as the father's ) ⁴. This will be made clear by means of two texts of
Śaunaka to be cited later on Vijñāneśvara also ( holds ) the same ( view ).
He ( Vijñāneśvara ) also says that the prohibition that the eldest son'
must not be given⁵ ( in adoption ) since the eldest son alone is the foremost

---

1. Yāj ( 1. 53 ) lays down that one should marry a girl who is not diseased, who
   has a brother and whose gotra and pravara are different ( from those of the bridegroom )
   The Mit on this comments that even if one goes through the ceremony of marriage
   with a girl who is his sapiṇḍa or whose ( father's ) gotra and pravara are the same as
   the bridegroom's, there is no valid marriage and the girl does not become his bhāryā ( a
   wife ), but if one were to marry a sickly girl ( in spite of the direction of Yāj ), a valid
   marriage takes place and the girl is his lawful wife, only he runs counter to visible results
   ( i e. marriage with a sickly girl may cause worry and unhappiness and the children of the
   marriage may also suffer) This means that according to the Mit the prohibition against
   marrying a sickly girl is puruṣārtha and not kratvartha. Nīlakanṭha seems to hold
   that it is kratvartha
   2 Medhātithi composed a bhāṣya (commentary) on the Manusmṛti, which is the oldest
   extant one. He flourished about 900 A D Vide ' History of Dharmaśāstra ' pp. 268--275
   3 Kullūkabhaṭṭa wrote a commentary on the Manusmṛti, which is the most widely
   known of all commentaries of Manu He flourished about 1150--1250 A. D. Vide.
   'History of Dharmaśāstra ' pp 359--368.
   4 Dattaka is one of the twelve sons and so Yāj is thinking only of a sajātīya
   dattaka. This is the reason why Nīl. says that Kullūka is right
2. This passage of the Mayūkha up to the word ' sarvam ' below is referred to in
   7 Bom. 221 at p 224 Vide also Tukaram v Baban 1 Bom L. R 144 at p 152
   and Vyas Chimanlal v Vyasa Ramchandra 24 Bom 367 ( F B. ) at p 375. It
   has now been held that the prohibition as to the adoption of the eldest son is only admoni-
   tory, Vide 7 Bom. 221 and 2 Cal. 365,