The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c14.s4.2

c14.s4.2

The theory of joint ownership should have invested the wife with the right to demand a partition against her husband in case it became impossible for her to live with him. No such right was however recognised. Yājñavalkya lays down that a wife should get a third share in her husband’s property, if she is unjustly superseded¹. He is, however, the only jurist to recognise such a right, and it is quite possible that in actual practice, husbands may have managed to escape this liability under the plea that the wives superseded were disobedient ones. It may be, however, pointed out that to demand a partition was regarded as a very unbecoming procedure; even a grown up son could not ask for it, if his father were living jointly with his grand-father or other elderly collaterals. The wife thus suffered from the same disabilities as against her husband, as the son suffered as against the father. It is however high time to invest the wife with an incontestible right to demand her full share in the property, if she is compelled to live separately owing to her husband's misdemeanour. In such cases, she ought to get a share equal to that of a son.