The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c14.s3.10

c14.s3.10

Among the heirs of the descending order, Hindu jurists have been the hardest on the widowed daughterin-law. Only one among them, Nanda Paṇḍita (*c.* 1575 a.d.), recognises her as an heir¹. The rest found it difficult to grant her any relief. The reasons are easy to understand. The Mitāksharā recognised the widow as an heir only when her husband had already separated from the joint family. It was regarded as highly indecorous for a son to separate from his father or grandfather; so there were hardly any widowed daughters-in-law in society who could claim a share under the Mitāksharā scheme of succession. Under the Dāyabhāga law, the separation of her husband from the family was no doubt not necessary for a widow to get a share; there was, however, another fatal difficulty in the way of the widow of the predeceased son. Under the Dāyabhāga scheme, the son could get no right in the family property till after the death of the father; the widowed daughter-in-law could claim no share in the family property, because her husband himself was entitled to none at the time of his death. Thus both the Mitāksharā and the Dāyabhāga shools could extend no relief to the widow of a predeceased son. The British courts followed faithfully the medieval authorities on this point, and were therefore unable to liberalise the law in her favour. The situation has changed in 1937 with the passing of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act; now the widow of a predeceased son can get a life estate in the share to which her husband would have been entitled.