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

S. IV. 10.-29-30 ] HEIRS TO STRĪDHANA 189
M . p. 98 ll. 15-31 ]
also of a woman married in that form belongs to the husband only. To the
same effect is Manu ( IX. 196-197 ) :
Whatever property ( a woman has ) in the brāhma, daiva, ārṣa, prājā-
patya or gāndharva forms, that is desired ( ordained ) as belonging to her
husband alone when she dies without issue , but whatever wealth is given
to her in the āsura and other forms of marriage that is desired as belong-
ing to her mother and father when she dies without issue.¹
When the marriage is in the brāhma or other ( approved ) form and in
default of the husband and when the marriage is in the āsura or other ( un-
approved ) form and in default of the parents, Bṛhaspati speaks of persons
who are entitled to take the technical strīdhana .
The mother's sister, the wife of the maternal uncle, the wife of the
paternal uncle, the father's sister, mother-in-law, the wife of the elder
brother-these are pronounced as equal to the mother When these leave no
son of the body nor daughter's son nor the son of these ( i e of the aurasa
&c ), their sister's son and the like would take their wealth ²

1. For definitions of the eight forms vide Manu III. 27--34 and Yāj I. 58--61 In
   modern times the only forms recognised are brāhma and āsura. The essence of the āsura
   form is that a bride-price is to be paid to the father or other relative who gives away the
   bride in consideration of the money. Vide Jaikisandas v Harkisandas 2 Bom. 9 āt p. 13
   for the essential characteristic of the āsura form and Hira v. Hansji 37 Bom 295. The
   general rule is that a marriage is to be presumed to have been in the brāhma form and this
   presumption will apply even to s'ūdras, if the parties belong to a respectable family. Vide
   Jagannath-v Narayan 34 Bom 553 at p 559. In Authikesavalu v. Ramanujam 32 Mad.
   512 it was held that the āsura form is not the approved form even for s'ūdras though it is
   permitted to them and the verse of Yāj (II 145) is quoted at p 518 The mere giving of Palu does
   not constitute an āsurā marriage( vide 2 Bom 9 ). The presumption that marriage is in the
   brāhma form applies even to those Mahomedans who are governed by Hindu Law in matters
   of succession and inheritance Vide Musa Haji v Haji Abdul 30 Bom 197 ( where
   marriage among Cutchi Memons was held to be in the brāhma form ) 'Belonging to her
   mother and father '--According to the Mit the mother would be preferred to the father,
   while according to the Mayūkha the reverse would be the case.
2. 'When these'-this means women who own stridhana property. The Dāyabhāga takes
   aurasa and suta separately, the first meaning 'child, son or daughter' and the latter
   meaning ' a dattaka son or the like ' It then says that these verses do not prescribe
   that the sister's son succeeds as the most preferential heir to a woman's stridhana after
   her own issue and descendants, but they simply declare that the sister's son is an heir and may
   take if no nearer heir like the deceased woman's husband's younger brother exists. The
   Vīramitrodaya says on the other hand that on account of these verses the sister's son would
   succeed in preference to the husband's brother or father In Bachha v Jugmon 12 Cal
   348 at p 355 Bṛhaspati's text is discussed and the Mayūkha is referred to ( husband's
   brother's son preferred as heir to a widow's strīdhana to her sister's son ). In Dasharathi
   Kundu v Bipin Behari 32 Cal 261 Bṛhaspati is quoted ( on p 262 ) and it is said that
   though this verse does not lay down the order of succession yet following the express
   words of the Dāyabhāga, the step-sister's son must be preferred to husband's elder brother.
   In Debi Prasanna v Harendra Nath 37 Cal. 863 husband's younger brother was preferred
   as heir to a woman's ayautaka to her own step brother. Vide 40 Cal. 82. In Gojabai v,