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

S. IV. 5. 19 20 ] ADOPTION 119
M. p. 58 ll 8-22 ]
The above is said in the Mitākṣarā¹ It is proper to hold that this is the
purpose of this text, since any other purpose is impossible Durebāndhavam
(in Vasiṣṭha) means 'one of another caste'
My* venerable father says that even one who is married or who has
had sons may be taken in adoption. And this is proper, since there is
nothing opposed (to this view)
As regards (the verses of) the Kālikāpurāna ;
Oh king,² that son, whose saṁskāras (purificatory ceremonies) up to
(i. e including) cūḍā (tonsure) have been performed with the gotra
(family name) of his (natural) father, does not (i e cannot)
attain the status of the (adopted) son of another. When the ceremonies of
cūḍā, upanayana (investiture with the sacred thread) are performed
under his own gotra (by the adoptive father), the dattaka and the other
kinds (of sons) become (recognised as) sons in the adoptive family, otherwise
they are called dāsa (slave) Oh king! after the fifth year (from
birth) the adopted sons and the rest cannot be (recognised as) sons
Having taken (in adoption) one who is five years old one (the adopter)
should first perform the putreṣṭi ³

1. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 132 after quoting Manu 9 182 says that the text is meant
   to forbid the adoption of another when it is possible to adopt a brother's son and that the
   text does not lay down that a brother's son is one's 'own son for all purposes, as such an
   hypothesis would be opposed to the rule laying down that one's widow, daughter and
   daughter's son succeed before a brother's son.
2. This passage of the Kālikāpurāṇa is quoted in Gangasahar v Lekhraj 9 All 253 at
   p. 906, where also the two translations of Sutherland and Colebrooke (of this passage)
   are set out and that of Sutherland approved At p 316 the comment of the Mayūkha
   about the passage being of doubtful authenticity is quoted and it is held that the authen-
   ticity of the passage is extremely doubtful (p 318) In Raja Mukund v Shri Jugan-
   nath 2 Patna 469 at p 477 the passage of the Kālikāpurāna is referred to and it is
   held that a boy may be adopted till his upanayana and that it does not matter if
   the Cūḍā ceremony is performed in the family of birth and that putreṣṭi is omitted at
   the time of adoption. Vide also Chandreshwar Prasad v Bisheshwar Pratap 5 Patna
   777 at p 844 (where the passage of the Kālikāpurāna as to five years was held not
   binding)
3. These verses of the Kālikāpurāna state four propositions, viz. (1) if all saṁskāras
   from jātakarma to cūḍā (i. e including cūḍā) have been performed in the family of the
   birth, that boy cannot be adopted in another family, (2) if a boy's cūḍā and later
   ceremonies are performed in the adoptive family he is fully an adopted son, (3) a boy over
   five years of age cannot be adopted at all, (4) a boy up to five years (but not more) whose
   cūḍā was performed in the family of birth may be adopted, provided the putreṣṭi is per-
   formed first before any other saṁskāras are performed in the family of adoption The cūḍā
   was performed generally in the third year and the tufts on the head were kept according
   to the pravaras Vide Manu II 35, Āp Gṛ. S VI, 16 3, 6--7 and notes to V M p 187
   According to Pāṇini (II 1 13) ā is used in the sense of exclusive lımit (maryādā)
   and inclusive limit (abhividhi) Vide notes to V. M p. 188 for the conflict if ā were
   taken in the sense of maryādā. Nīl. says that these verses apply, if at all, to the adoption

• P. 114 (text).