The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c13.26

c13.26

The theory of the joint ownership of the couple secured only the above minor advantages to the wife. It was not pressed to its logical conclusion in order to secure her an absolute equality with the husband in the ownership of the family property. Hindu jurists were not prepared to entertain such a claim on behalf of the wife. Only one amongst them, Yājñavalkya, permits her to claim a one third share, if she is unjustly superseded². But this claim does not appear to have been either actually conceded in practice by society, or sanctioned by other jurists. The wife had no right to incur any substantial expenditure during her coverture without her husband's permission. Even the *Mitāksharā* expressly declares that she can spend out of the family property only with the concurrence of the husband³. Hindu jurists have further failed to protect the wife's right to a maintenance or a share; they do not invalidate a sale or a mortgage of the family property by the husband, if it was prejudicial even to her right of maintenance. They would have regarded such a procedure as immoral and reprehensible; they have however failed to make it invalid *ab initio*.