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

180 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ B. IV 10, 8-9
[ M. p.93 l.33-p.94 l.10
Nirhāra means expenditure ¹
In a certain kind of property Kātyāyana declares the absolute do-
minion (of woman)
That is known to be saudāyika which is obtained by a woman
whether married or a maiden in her husband's or father's house from her
brother or parents ² On obtaining wealth of the saudāyika kind it is held
(lit. desired) that women have independent dominion (over it) since it
was given by them (by the kindred) as a support in order that they
may not be reduced to a terrible (or wretched) condition. It has been
declared that women always have independent dominion over saudāyika
as regards sale or gift at their pleasure and even as regards immovables ³
But over immovable property given by her husband she has no
absolute dominion as said by Nārada
Whatever was given by a loving husband to a woman she may enjoy
as she pleases when he is dead or she may give it away excepting
immovable property ⁴

1. In Lakshman v Satyabhamabai 2 Bom at p. 512 (foot note 7) it is said that
   it is better to translate nirhāra by board than as expenditure
2. Sārdham is a bad reading. Read vāpi instead. Saudāyika is a technical
   word used in a peculiar sense by Kāt. It is derived from sudāya and comprehends
   several kinds of strīdhana property It is specially coined for saying that over saudāyika
   a woman has absolute power of disposal even during her husband's life-time. It is wealth
   which a woman receives from her parents, brothers and their relations (but not from the
   husband or his relations) This is the interpretation of Sm. C. and V R. (p. 511) but the
   Dāyabhāga reads bhartuḥ sakāśāt and thus includes husband's gifts also under saudā-
   yika. In Muthukaruppa v Sellathammal 39 Mad 298 Kātyāyana's definition of sau-
   dāyika is translated (at p. 300) the varying views of Sm C., Par M and Saras. are set
   out and it is held that a gift by the father of immovable property to his daughter before
   marriage was saudāyika and at her absolute disposal. In Venkaraddi v Hanamantha Gowda
   34 Bom. L. R. 1144 Kātyāyana's verses on saudāyika are quoted and it is held that
   property bequeathed to a woman by her maternal grandfather is her saudāyika strīdhana
   which she is competent to alienate without the consent of her husband
3. These two verses are quoted in 1 Mad. H C. R 85 at p 90 (foot-note)
   Bhāgīrthibai v Kahnujīrao 11 Bom. 285 (F B.) refers to Kāt. on saudāyika (at p. 301).
   In Bhau v Raghunath I. L. R. 30 Bom 229 these two verses and the definition of
   saudāyika are quoted (on p. 238) and it is held that except as to the kind known as
   saudāyika a woman's power of disposal over her strīdhana is during coverture subject to
   her husband's consent and that she cannot dispose of such strīdhana (other than saudā-
   yika) by will where the husband survives her and is not shown to have assented to
   the will. Vide Bhagvantlal v Bai Divali 27 Bom. L. R. 633, where 30 Bom. 229
   was distinguished. In Nathubhai v Janker I L. R. 1 Bom. 121 the last of the three
   verses of Kāt. is relied on (at p. 123) for the proposition that a Hindu female is not
   on account of her sex absolutely disqualified from entering into a contract.
4. This verse is quoted in Venkata Ram Rao v Venkata Surya Rao 1 Mad
   281 at p 287 and in 25 All. 351 at p. 353 (where it was held that in immovable property
   given or devised by husband to a wife she has no power of alienation unless expressly con-
   ferred.) Vide also Hirabai v Lakshmibai 11 Bom 573. In Damodar v Purmanandas