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

150 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. IV S. 1-1
[ M. p 78 l. 31-p. 77 l 14
Now (begins) the order of taking (i e succeeding to) saprati
bandha dāya (obstructed heritage)
On this point Yājñavalkya (II 135-136) declares the order of succes-
sion to the wealth of one who (died) separated¹ and not re-united
The wife the daughters also the parents the brothers their sons, gotrajas
(agnatic kinsmen) bandhu (a cognate) a pupil a fellow-student—of
these on failure of (each) preceding the next following is entitled to take the
wealth of one who has gone to heaven (i. e. who is dead) and leaves no
male issue This rule applies to all the varņas (the four principal castes)²
The wife if faithful to her husband takes (her deceased husband's)
wealth but not if she is unfaithful, since Kātyāyana says
The wife who is faithful (to her husband) is entitled to take the wealth
of her (deceased) husband
and since Hārīta (Laghu Hārīta 67) says
If a woman³ becoming a widow when young is head-strong maintenance
(and not the estate of her husband) should then be given to her for the
passing (i e for the support) of her life
Prajāpati says
A chaste woman if she die (before her husband) takes away his
agnihotra⁴ and her husband's estate if the husband die (before her) This
is the ancient rule.
Agnihotram means the consecrated fires The same author (Prajāpati)
says
Having taken all his (husband's) moveables and immoveables (such as)
inferior metals gold liquids (oil ghee &c.) clothes she should cause his
1 In Ramappa v Sithammal 2 Mad. 182 (F B.) a divided son was preferred as
an heir to the widow of the deceased vid p. 185 for reference to V M
2 These verses of Yāj. are translated in many cases. Vide Lallabhai v Mankuvar-
bai 2 Bom 33 at p. 416 and 20 Mad. 207 at p. 218.
3 The word karkaśā is explained by the Mit. as suspected of incontinence It
probably means when she leads a wild dissolute life and not the restrained and dignified
life enjoined upon widows in ancient works. In Valu v Ganga 7 Bom. 84 this passage
of Hārīta is referred to (at p 89) and it is said It is plain that the authors of the Mit.
and the Mayukha regarded the above text of Hārīta as exclusively intended to qualify the
right of the widow to inherit her husband's property and a doubt is expressed whether
the text applies to maintenance In Gangadhar v Tellu 36 Bom. 138 it was held that a
widow was not disqualified from inheriting the property of her husband on the ground of
her unchastity during her husband's life time if it is condoned by him This last was
followed in Radhe Lal v Bhawani Ram 40 All. 188 Vide as to effect of unchastity
on a widow's right of maintenance Khandi v Lakkhamī 33 Bom. L. R 810 where
most of the cases on the subject are collected and where it was held that unchastity would
divestitle a widow from recovering maintenance even if it be claimed under an
agreement.
4 i e she was cremated with the sacred fires kindled by him Compare Yāj. I 89 and
the Mit. thereon.