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

184 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ B. IV 10. 15-28
M. p.25 l. 83-p.70 l. 18
Stridhana goes to (the woman's) children and the daughter is a
sharer therein, if she be not given away (in marriage), but (a
daughter) if married receives only (a little) in token of regard (for
her)
Tadaṁśinī (in the verse) means she is entitled to a share equal to that
of the son, aprattā (not given away) means not married. The
meaning is that when she (an unmarried daughter) exists the married
one gets only a token of regard i. e. only some trifle. In the absence of
unmarried daughters, married ones get a share equal to that of their brother
since Kātyāyana says—
Sisters having husbands should share with their brothers.
Something should be given to the daughters' daughters also since Manu
(IX 193) says:—
Even¹ to the daughters of them (the daughters) something should be
given according to their deserts from their grandmother's estate, if there
be affection
The yautaka (kind of strīdhana) goes to the unmarried daughters
alone and not to the sons. To the same effect is the same author (Manu
IX. 131)
Whatever is the yautaka (wealth) of the mother is the portion of
the unmarried daughter alone
According to Madana yautaka is that which is obtained by a woman at
the time of marriage or other (ceremony) when seated with her husband
on one seat since the Nighaṇṭu² says that yautaka is (what is acquired)
when the two (husband and wife) are joined together
³As regards the aforesaid technical strīdhana other than anvādheya
and the affectionate gifts of the husband Gautama states a special rule
strīdhana goes to daughters unmarried and indigent.³
1 In Sham Bihari Lal v Ram Kali 45 All. 715, a daughter's daughter was held to
be nearer heir to strīdhana than a son's son. In Ram Koli v Gopal Devi 48 All. 648 dau-
ghter's daughters were held entitled to succeed to the strīdhana of their grandmother irre-
spective of the question whether they were married or unmarried which latter con-
sideration was held applicable to daughters only. In Amarjit Upadhya v Algu 51 All. 478
the daughter's daughter was preferred to the daughter's son as heir to strīdhana.
2 Vide p. 85 n 2 above as to Nighaṇṭu.
3. The heirs to the technical strīdhana (other than anvādheya and husband's gifts
of affection) are first unmarried daughters (to the exclusion of married daughters) then
married daughters, among whom the indigent exclude those who are well-to-do. In Totawa
v Basawa I. L. R. 23 Bom. 229 it has been held that courts ought not to go minutely into
questions of comparative poverty but that where the difference is marked, the poorest dau-
ghter takes the whole property. Vide Manki v Kundan 47 All. 403 also.
P. 150 (text)