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

190 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. IV 10. 30-34
M. p. 93 L 31 p. 99 L 10
*Here (in this passage) the absence of the daughter and the daughter's
daughter is to be understood, since the son of the body and the daughter's
son are entitled to take (strīdhana) only in default of them.
In respect of property given by bandhus (cognate kindred) in āsura
and other (unapproved) forms of marriage Kātyāyana says
That which was given (to a woman) by her bandhus goes on failure
of the bandhus to her son.¹
As to śulka, however Gautama (says) the sister's śulka belongs to
her full brothers and afterwards to her mother²
As to what Śaṅkha says the śulka belongs to the bridegroom himself
that must be understood (to relate) to a woman who dies before (the actual)
marriage Here Yājñavalkya (II 146) states a special rule
If she dies (after betrothal) the gifts (given to her) should be taken
(by the bridegroom) after deducting the expenses of both sides
(therefrom)
The meaning is the husband (the bridegroom) may take (back)
if the (betrothed) girl dies the śulka already given by him to her that
remains after (deducting therefrom) the expenses incurred by himself and
by her father Baudhāyana states a special rule as to certain matters
Shrimant Shahajirao 17 Bom. 114 at p. 125 it was held that the list does not state the
order of succession as between the heirs enumerated. In Bai Kessarbai v Hunsraj 30
Bom. 431 (P C.) this text is construed as not laying down any order of succession and
it is said that the list is not exhaustive and that its true construction is that it should be
taken distributively viz. the husband's relations will succeed if the marriage is in an
approved form and the father's, if in an unapproved form. At p. 444 Bṛhaspati is quoted
and at pp. 446-451 three constructions are discussed In that case a co-widow was preferred
to husband's brother or his brother's son. Vide Sundaram v Ramasanna 43 Mad. 32
at p. 80 for a discussion of Bṛhaspati's text (which was held not applicable to a maiden)
The son of the body &c. — the aurasa son and daughter's son are expressly mentioned
by Bṛhaspati, but the daughter and daughter's daughter are not mentioned; yet they are
to be implied in this passage as the son himself comes after the daughter and daughter's
daughter as an heir to strīdhana.
1 The Dāyabhāga, Vīr Sm C. read goes to her husband and the Dāyabhāga says
that this text applies to śulka. The Sm. C. takes the words to apply to the strīdhana of a
woman married in a form other than the five mentioned by Manu (IX. 196).
2. This sūtra is differently interpreted by different writers. The Mit., Vm. C., Par
M., Vīr interpret as above Haradatta (on Gautama) says that full brothers take it
after the mother i. e the mother takes first. V R. follows Haradatta. Śulka is explained
by Kātyāyana above (178)
P 102 (text).