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

182 | VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA | [S. IV 10. 10-18 / M. p. 94 l. 37-p. 95 l. 18]
acts, in disease or while under imprisonment (by a creditor or by the
king or by an enemy)
Here from the express mention of the husband it is (as good as) declared
that one other than the husband should not take a woman's property even
in such distress as a famine and the like. Dharmakāryam (religious
act) means 'an indispensable one. Sampratirodhake means in prison.
Devala says that in certain cases (the husband) has to return (stri-
dhana used by him) even if he be unwilling.
If the husband has two wives and he does not honour (reside with)
her he should be forcibly made (by the king) to return (the stridhana
of the ill-treated wife) even if she bestowed it upon him through affec-
tion. *Where food raiment and residence are withheld from a woman
(by her husband) she may exact (or demand) her own property
(from the husband or his family) and the share (of the husband) from
his coparceners
'Rikthinaḥ' means from the coparcener. This text refers to a chaste
wife, but an unchaste wife does not deserve a share. And to the same
effect the same author says
A wife who does acts injurious (to her husband) who is immodest
who wastes property and who is given to adultery is not entitled to any
wealth (of her husband¹).
The same author says²
Wealth was produced for sacrifices therefore one should employ it on
religious objects and not spend it on women, fools and irreligious people.
Manu (IX. 195) thus declares the order of heirs, after a woman's death,
in taking her (stridhana) wealth called anvādheya³ (gift subsequent)
1 This verse is also ascribed to Kātyāyana. If we read strīdhanam as one word as
done in the text the meaning according to the Sm. C. is she is not entitled to use even
her own strīdhana according to her own wishes. From the context it seems better to
separate as strī and dhanam.
2. This verse is quoted in the Mit. which does not accept the position that all wealth
is intended for sacrifices. Vide notes to V. M. pp. 287-288 for discussion of the position of
the Mit.
3. The Mayūkha differs from the Mit. in prescribing several different modes of
succession to several kinds of strīdhana. The Mit. prescribes one mode for all kinds
of strīdhana except sulka. The Mayūkha prescribes four different modes viz
(1) for anvādheya and husband's gift of affection (2) for sulka, (3) for technical
strīdhana other than that in 1 and 2, and (4) for non-technical strīdhana. According to
the Mit. this verse of Manu does not lay down a special rule (vidhi) not found else-
where but is only a re-iteration (anuvāda) of what is already well known viz that when
a woman has several daughters (who will therefore be full sisters) they succeed to their
mother's strīdhana (and sons do not take at all) but when there are no daughters
at all then sons succeed to their mother's strīdhana together. Others like the Dāyabhāga,
the Sm. C., the V. R., the Vīr. hold that this text of Manu contains a special rule that
daughters and sons succeed together to the anvādheya strīdhana and to husband's gifts.
P. 157 (text).