The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c14.s2.5

c14.s2.5

We therefore find that down to *c.* 300 B. C., the right of the widow to inherit her husband’s property was not recognised by any jurist. Vedic texts were definitely opposed to this right. Most of the Dharma-sūtra writers adopt the same attitude. Baudhāyana expressly rejects the widow’s claim on the authority of the Vedic texts referred to in the last para. Āpastamba lays down that in the absence of the son the property should devolve, not upon the widow, but upon the nearest *male sapiṇḍa*. If none such within seven degrees is in existence to claim the property, it should devolve upon the preceptor. If he also is dead, then it should be taken over by a disciple of the deceased to be spent for charitable purposes¹. This detailed scheme of Āpastamba about the devolution of property nowhere mentions or provides for the widow. The same is the case with Manu. He lays down that the property of a sonless person will first devolve upon his father, then upon his brother, and finally upon a *sapiṇḍa* and a *sakulya* in accordance to his propinquity. When none of these is forthcoming, first a preceptor, then a disciple, and finally the king should take it away¹. Elsewhere he recognises the mother also as an heir²; the widow is, however, nowhere mentioned as possessing any rights of inheritance. It is true that Kullūka, a 15th century commentator, no doubt contends that in *Manu smṛiti* IX, 185, though not expressly mentioned, the widow is intended to be understood as an heir after the son³; he is however obviously reading later ideas in the earlier text. There can be no doubt that Medhātithi, the 9th century commentator of Manu, is correct when he maintains that Manu has not recognised the widow as an heir at all⁴.