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

S. IV. 10. 10 ] STRĪDHANA 181
M. p. 94 ll. 11-37 ]
The same author declares the non-existence of dominion in the husband
and others over strīdhana :
Neither the husband, nor the son, nor the father, nor the brothers
have authority over strīdhana for taking it or giving it away. If any-
one of these consumes by force woman's property he should be made to
restore it with interest and shall also incur a fine.¹ If *such a person
were to consume it amicably after securing her consent, he would be
made to restore the principal only, when he becomes well-off (able to pay).
Manu (VIII. 29 and IX. 200) says :
On such² of their kinsmen as seize the wealth (of women) while they
(the women) are alive a righteous king should inflict the punishment meted
out to a thief. The heirs of the husband should not divide (among them-
selves) the ornaments worn by women during the lifetime of their
husband. If they divide them, they become degraded (sinful).
Dhṛtah means 'what was given to her by the husband and the like
and was worn by her.' Devala says:
Maintenance (what was given for maintenance), ornaments, ś'ulka
(bride price) and the profits of money-lending are her strīdhana. She
alone is entitled to enjoy it and the husband is not entitled (to
enjoy it) except in the case of distress. In the case of idle expenditure
or consumption of it (the husband) should repay it with interest, but
he may use the strīdhana (of his wife) for relieving the distress of his son.
Vṛtti means 'wealth given by the father and the like for her main-
tenance'. Lābhah³ means 'interest'. Mokṣa means 'expenditure i.e.
gift'. The word 'son' (is illustrative and) implies the whole family.
Yājñavalkya (II. 147) says:
The husband is not liable to return, if he is unwilling, the property
of his wife taken (by him) in a famine, for indispensable religious
7 Bom. 155 at pp. 164--165 this verse was relied upon for the proposition that a widow has
absolute control over movables given by the husband or inherited by her. In Seth Mul-
chand v. Bai Mancha 7 Bom. 491 it was held that an absolute bequest by a Hindu of his
separate immovable property to his widow confers on her as full dominion and power of
alienation over that property as if the bequest had been made to a stranger and that the
passage of Nārada had reference probably to a stage of progress in which the severance of an
estate from the family was still looked on as impossible or at least as sacrilegious.
1 This verse is quoted in Nathubhai v. Javher 1 Bom. 121 at p. 123. The three
verses are ascribed to Kātyāyana in most digests.
2 This verse is quoted in Nathubhai v. Javher 1 Bom. 121 at p. 123.
3 'Lābha' is variously explained. Sm. C. and Vīr. say that it means what is given
to a woman when observing a vrata (such as one for securing the favour of Pārvatī), while
V. R. explains it as 'what is received from relatives'. 'Idle expenditure' means 'spend-
ing in gambling' or on 'nautch parties' &c. This verse of Yāj. is quoted in Nammalwar
v. Perundevi 50 Mad. 341 at pp. 344 and 346, where 'taken' is said to mean not merely
physical taking but 'taking and using' and that if husband does not use, then the wife
still remains the owner.

• P. 156 (text),