The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c13.68

c13.68

It is however very doubtful whether Vijñāneśvara really intended to invest the widow with the right of disposal over the landed property included in her Strīdhana, but acquired by inheritance or partition. He was not prepared to concede even to the male manager of the joint family the full power to alienate the immoveable property that he may have himself acquired². Could he then have ever dreamt of investing women with a right, which he was not prepared to grant even to the male manager? His silence on the point may be simply due to the fact that he tacitly accepted the general principle that women are limited heirs, a principle which was approved even by Bṛihaspati, the most well known advocate of women's rights. Radical jurists, who advance new theories to popularise a much needed reform in a conservative society, do not always accept all the deductions that can be legitimately drawn from their own premises. The Privy Council was therefore right when it declared that the property acquired through inheritance by a woman, though included in her Strīdhana, cannot be disposed of by her, and will revert back to the next heirs of her husband, instead of devolving upon the peculiar heirs of Strīdhana in its narrower sense. How far the law should now be changed in this matter will be discussed in the next chapter, where the question of the right of inheritance of the widow will be considered.