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

Ś. IV. 5 28-30 ] ADOPTION 127
M. p. 61 l. 24-p 62 l. 1 ]
and that the same holds good with reference to the son of that (son of the
dattaka) This requires consideration (i e this is not quite correct)
Although the kevaladattaka¹ has not been mentioned anywhere expressly
by that very word, yet he (the kevaladattaka) does follow (is established
as a separate entity) by implication from the fact that the text of Manu (9.
142) already mentioned declares the cessation of all connection (of the son
given in adoption) with the natural father and others and that this (cessa-
tion of all connection) is wanting in the case of the dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa.²
Moreover, the text of Gautama (Dh. S 4 3) (one should marry a
person who is) 'beyond the seventh from out of the relations of the father
and of the actual procreator and beyond the fifth from out of the relations
of the mother' lays down a prohibition of marriage up to the seventh degree
in the family of the procreator, which (prohibition) would be superfluous
as regards the dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa, since in him there does exist (according to
all writers) sapiṇḍa relationship (with the procreator) Hence in order
to give this (passage of Gautama) its full meaning (or purpose) the
(existence of the) kevaladattaka (as separate from dvyāmuṣyā-
yaṇa) must be admitted, since as regards him the cessation of the sapiṇḍa
relationship is declared (in the text of Manu) And moreover there is a
conflict between the following (verse) from the Pravarādhyāya³.
1 The passage from this line to the sūtra of Gautama and the comment thereon
is referred to in Ramangauda v Shivaji (1876) P. J p 78. for the proposition that the
marriage of a brāhmaṇa with his sister's daughter is void on the ground of sapiṇḍa-ship
in the absence of special custom
2. Nīl. is quite right here His argument is that when Manu speaks of complete
cessation of connection with the natural father he is speaking of a kevala dattaka, though he
does not use that word, since all texts are agreed that as regards the dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa there is
no such complete cessation.
Gautama's sūtra is similar to what Yāj (1 58) and Manu (3. 5) say, Gautama, however
introduces the word 'bījinaḥ' after the word 'pitṛ bandhubhyaḥ' In ancient times there
were several secondary sons, such as kṣetraja, putrikāputra &c Therefore it was possible
to find that one person was in law the father of a person, while the actual progenitor was an-
other, as e g in the case of niyoga, the son born of a woman belonged to her husband, while
the actual procreator (bījin) might have been the husband's brother, or sagotra or some one
else Therefore Gautama laid down that prohibition on the ground of sapiṇḍa relationship in
marriages extended up to seven degrees on the legal father's side as well as on the procreator's
side It is however not easy to see how this sūtra helps Nīl in establishing the existence
of kevala dattaka Gautama is not laying down here a new rule unknown from another source,
He simply summarises the rules deducible from the practices of the śiṣṭas of his day and
therefore this sūtra must be regarded as a mere reiteration, just as his sūtra about ownership
was held by Nīl to be a mere reiteration of what was well-known.
3 In the Śrauta sūtras there is a chapter on pravaras Whence this verse is quoted
it is difficult to say. A man cannot marry a girl born of the same gotra as his Some
gotras have only one pravara, some have three and some have five pravaras The gotras
may be different, but one or more pravaras may be common to two gotras A man can-
not marry a girl whose father's pravara is the same as his. Pravaras are those sages
whose names are invoked by the sacrificer at the time of selecting priests at a sacrifice or
P. 118 (text).