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

S, IV, 7. 22-24                               175
M. p 89 l 30-p 90 l, 9 ]          RE-UNION
of then husband, but if they be otherwise they should cut off (the mainte-
nance) It is enjoined that she who is his daughter is to be maintained out
of her father's share, she takes the share (of her father) till her mar-
riage, after that (marriage) her husband should maintain her.¹
Just as in the (Vedic) text 'If after a man has set apart rice for
offering (in darśa iṣṭi) the moon were to rise in the east, he should divide
the husked grains of rice (set apart for the iṣṭi) into three classes' (Tai.
Sam II 5. 4 1--2) the actual setting apart of the rice is not intended to
be prescribed (as a condition for undergoing the prāyaścitta for the unexpected
moonrise), since another text (Śatapatha--brāhmaṇa XI I 4. 1) 'if (the
moon) rises when the (rice for the) offering (is not set apart)' it is under-
stood that preparations for the offering (are meant to be the condition), so
in the above passage (from Nārada and Śaṅkha) from the very opening
verse (of Nārada in that passage) it is understood that reunited members
are the agents of the actions of dying, becoming an ascetic or dividing and
therefore the word 'brothers' is not to be taken literally (but only as ill-
ustrative)² As to what Śaṅkha says after starting a discussion about re-
united members 'the wealth of one dying sonless goes to the brothers, on
failure of them the parents take it or the eldest wife', that is intended,
according to Madana,³ for fixing the order (of succession) among the un-
reunited brothers and the rest, when a reunited coparcener dies after the
death of those with whom there was reunion such as the paternal uncle, the
brother's son or half brother The same author (Madana) says that even here
1 In Bai Mangal v. Bai Rukhmini 23 Bom 291 this last verse is quoted at
p. 295 and it is said 'all text-writers appear to be agreed on this point viz that it is only
the unmarried daughters who have a legal claim for maintenance The married daughters
must seek their maintenance from the husband's family If this provision fails and the
widowed daughter returns to live with her father or brother there is a moral and social
obligation, but not a legally enforceable right by which her maintenance can be claimed as a
charge on her father's estate in the hands of his heirs'.
2 Vide notes to V M pp 277--279 for detailed explanation of this passage Nārada
has before the three verses quoted in the text a verse 'संसृष्टानां तु यो भाग' that is, the dis-
cussion starts with reunited coparceners in general, hence the word 'brothers' in the first
of the verses quoted in the Mayūkha is not restricted to brothers only but stands for all re-
united members This is illustrated by a Vedic example If a man through mistake makes
preparations for a darśa iṣṭi and then it being really the 14th of the dark half the moon rises
in the east, an expiatory rite is prescribed 'Nirvāpa' means 'setting aside grains intend-
ing them for being offered to a deity' The question arises whether the expiatory rite is to
be performed only when the preparations for dars'a iṣṭi have gone so far as 'nirvāpa' or
even if they have not gone so far The Śatapatha prescribes the expiation even if the grains
have not been set apart Hence the words 'havir niruptam' in the Tai Sam are not to be
taken literally
3 Madana's view seems to be that this text lays down a special order of succession
(other than the general one of wife, daughter, daughter's son &c), when one who was re-
united with an uncle, nephew or brother dies after all of them are dead.

• P. 152 (text).