The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c14.s2.47

c14.s2.47

The Dāyabhāga school of Bengal liberalised the law still further in favour of the widow. The Mitāksharā school recognised the widow's right of inheritance, only if her husband had separated from the joint family before his death². An examination of the context of the verse in which Yājñavalkya mentions widow as the next heir, makes it clear that he intended to recognise her right, only if her husband was not a member of the joint family at the time of his death. This conclusion becomes further irresistible from v. 138, where Yājñavalkya lays down that when members of a family have reunited after separation, the surviving male coparceners will succeed the deceased, and not his wife¹. Vijñāneśvara is therefore correct in holding that according to Yājñavalkya only the widow of a separated coparcener can become an heir to her husband. Of course he could have liberalised the law still further by drawing further deductions from the text of Bṛihaspati, which declares that none can touch the property of a person as long as his wife is alive. He could have argued that whether the deceased was a member of the joint family or not, was an immaterial question. As long as the wife was alive, the husband ought to be regarded as living ; the inheritance will not open at all till the death of the wife. She must be therefore allowed to enjoy the property of her husband irrespective of the consideration, whether he had separated from the family or not before his death.