The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c14.s4.8

c14.s4.8

Yājñavalkya allows the widowed mother a share equal to that of her son¹. Śukra allows her only a one fourth share (IV, 5, 297), but his view is not shared by the vast majority of jurists, who insist that the mother should receive one full share. Some writers attempted to curtail the full share allowed to the mother by suggesting that the expression 'equal share' is not to be interpreted literally; it is really intended to mean just as much wealth as may be necessary for her maintenance. The *Mitāksharā*, however, rightly points out the utter unreasonableness of this interpretation and maintains that the widowed mother must get a full share². Most of the jurists have accepted this view, as also the modern law courts. The latter, however, had given the ruling that the mother could get this share only if her sons sued for a partition; she could not herself bring the suit. This was clearly against the spirit of the Hindu law. Manu and Kauṭilya do not even permit brothers to effect a partition during the mother's lifetime³; they would have been shocked to be told that the mother could get her share only if her sons chose to effect a partition. The law therefore needed a change in the direction of allowing the mother to sue for her share, in case she could not pull on well with her sons. This desideratum has now been achieved by the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act passed in 1937 by the Indian Legislature.