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

162 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [S. IV & 4-5 / M. p. 77 l. 20-p. 78 l. 8
As to what Kātyāyana says
When the husband is dead (his widow) preserving (the honour of)
the family should get (i e succeed to) the share of her husband as long as
she lives, she has no power (over it) as regards gift mortgage or sale
that text referes to a prohibition of gift and the like intended for bards
(bandī) panegyrists (cāraṇa)¹ and the like but gifts for unseen (i e religi
ous or spiritual) purposes and mortgages and the like conducive to those
(purposes) do of course exist (i e can be legally made by the widow out
of her husband s property) on account of the text already quoted immovea
ble and moveable &c. and on account of the text of Kātyāyana
(A widow) engrossed in vratas (vows or observances) and fasts
firmly abiding by (the vow of) celibacy and constantly engaged in re-
straint (of senses) and making gifts would go to heaven even though she
be without a son
As regards what the same author (Kātyāyana) says
Heirless² property goes to the king after setting aside (some wealth)
for the women² the servants and for the srāddhas (of the deceased)
also held to include both movables and immovables in Bhugwandeen v Mynabaee 11 Moo
I A. 487 at p 511. In Pandharinath v Govind 32 Bom 59 at p 70 this verse of
Kātyāyana is quoted and it was held that a Hindu widow is not competent under the Mitā-
kṣarā to make a gift of movables inherited from her husband. In Panachand v Manoharlal
12 Bom 180 at p. 143, this verse of Kāt and the next the widow engrossed &c. are
quoted and it is held that these two verses do not give an unrestricted authority to the
widow to make gifts even for the spiritual welfare of her husband and a gift of 4/11th of the
husband s property for religious purposes was held to be not valid. Vide 41 All. 150 at p. 145
affirmed by P C in 44 All. 503.
1 The widow has very large powers of disposition for religious and charitable pur-
poses and those which are supposed to conduce to the spiritual welfare of her husband as ruled
in 8 Moore s Indian Appeals p 29 Vide Bhagirathibai v Kahnujirao 11 Bom. 285 F. B. at
p 309 for reference to V M., Chimnaji v Dinkar 11 Bom 320 321. The Vyavahāra
mayukha allows the alienation of the estate by a widow for pious purposes of which none
can be more sacred in her case than the payment of her husband s debt (even debts barred
by limitation may be paid): 9 Lahore 385 Sardar Singh v Kunj Bihari 49 I.A. 383 (where
two set of religious acts are distinguished viz. obsequies of the deceased and other pious
observances) Such religious purposes include pilgrimage by widow for her husband s benefit
(Ganpat v Tukaram 36 Bom 88) small gifts to priests at holy places (40 All. 637) &c.
2 These verses of Kāt. and Nārada and the comments of the Mayūkha on the whole of
this topic (text. 130) are elaborately examined in Savitribai v Laxmībai 2 Bom 573 (F. B.)
at pp 603-09 and it is said (at p.611) "This examination of the Mayūkha lends no support to
a widow seeking a pecuniary allowance by way of maintenance from the separated brother of
her husband whether possessed or unpossessed of family estate" In Yashvantrao v Kashibai
12 Bom 26 the text of Kāt. and Nār. are referred to and it is said that though texts speak of
only women commentators and judicial authorities have included concubines therein and
that a concubine s continued continence is a condition precedent to her claiming mainten-
ance: Vide Ramchandra v Jamuna (1899) 12 N.L.R. 143 (=14 Bom. H.C. R. 275). Vide add.
P. 130 (text)