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

S. IV. 8. 5-6 ] SUCCESSION 153
M. p. 78 ll. 9-20 ]
the wealth of an ( heirless ) śrotriya ( brāhmaṇa learned in the Vedas )
should be bestowed on ( other ) śrotriyas
and as to what Nārada ( p 202 v. 52 ) says;
Except in the case of ( an heirless )¹ brāhmaṇa the king, who is intent
on ( observance of ) law, should provide maintenance for the women of
him ( whose wealth escheats to the king for want of heirs ). This is de-
clared to be the rule about ( taking ) the heritage
these texts refer to women guarded as concubines, since the word patnī
( legally married wife ) is not employed therein. As to what Nārada ( pp
195--196 vv 25 -26 ) says:
If among brothers anyone dies without issue or becomes an ascetic ( a
sannyāsin ), the remaining brothers should divide his estate, except the
strīdhana ( of his wife ) And they should provide maintenance for his
wives till the end of their lives, provided they preserve ( unsullied ) the
bed of their husband But if they be otherwise ( i e if they are un-
chaste ), they ( the brothers ) should cut off ( their maintenance ) ²
v Lakshmawa 26 Bom 163 (= 3 Bom L R 617 ) where it was held that the concubine
has no legal right against her paramour during his lifetime, but on his death she has a legal
right for maintenance against the heir if she continued to be a concubine up to the death of
the paramour and was continent afterwards This decision was approved of in Bai Nagubai
v Bai Monghibai 50 Bom 601 (= 53 I A 153 ), which overruled the definition of 'avaruddha
strī ' given in 47 Bom. 401 at p 410--11 In 50 Bom 601 at p 612 the Mayūkha is quoted
and it is held that it is not a condition that she should have resided in the same house with
the deceased together with his wife and regular family In Ānandibai v Chandrabai 48
Bom 203 it was held that a kept woman whose husband is alive cannot be treated as an
' avaruddha strī ' entitled to maintenance on the death of the paramour
1 Vide Manu 9 189 and Baud Dh S I 5. 102 about the property of an heirless
brāhmaṇa These texts employ the words yoṣit, strī and not the word patnī When a man
dies leaving a patnī, his wealth is not heirless and cannot escheat to the king Hence
these texts in allowing the king to take after providing for women must be interpreted as
referring to concubines in the words ' yoṣit ' &c. This dictum about the wealth of an
heirless learned brāhmaṇa is not respected in modern times. Vide Collector of Masulipatam
v Cavaly Venkata 8 Moore's Indian Appeals 500 at p 527
2 This text of Nārada is quoted in 2 Bom 434 at p 512 n 1 and in Bhikubai v Hariba
49 Bom 459 at p 463 and in Satyabhama v Keshavacharya 39 Mad 658 at p 660
( where a widow who had made an agreement for maintenance with her husband s brother,
then led an immoral life but subsequently repented and brought a suit, it was held that she
lost her rights to the rate fixed in the agreement but was entitled to claim a starving mainte-
nance ), Valu v Ganga 7 Bom 84 at p 89 and Vishnu v Manjamma 9 Bom 108 at
p 110 The last two cases hold that a 'widow may forfeit her right of maintenance by
subsequent unchastity But vide Moniram v Keri Kolitani 7 I A 115 at p 147 and
2 All 150 ( F B ) where it was held that subsequent unchastity does not cause forfeiture
of a widow's right as heir In Valu v Ganga 7 Bom 84 at p 89 it was said that the
texts draw no distinction between maintenance of a widow in a joint family and bare
maintenance, except in the case of an adulterous wife and mother, for whom there are
special texts
V. M. 20