History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s36.19

v1.c6.s36.19

Yama required the king to look into the disputes of litigants carefully and impartially.⁴⁶³ Yama cites the authority of Manu for the proposition that everything brought about by coercion such as a gift or a deed was liable to be set aside. This is almost identical with Manu 8. 168. Yama lays down that a Brāhmaṇa was never to be awarded corporal punishment, but that a Brāhmaṇa guilty of crimes was to be imprisoned and made⁴⁶⁵ to work. Yama, like Yāj. (II. 145), prescribed that the strīdhana of a woman married in the Āsura form went to her father,⁴⁶⁶ if she died childless. Aparārka (p. 822) quotes two verses of Yama that prescribed the first ammercement for him who, though forbidden, wrongfully takes the water of a lake or disturbs a water-course and the highest ammercement for him who breaks a lake. Aparārka (p. 860) also cites Yama for the fine of five kṛṣṇalas in the case of adultery with another's wife of the same caste as that of the paramour and twelve paṇas in case the wife is of a lower caste. The Smṛticandrikā and the Vyavahāramayūkha on the other hand direct that the king should punish the Brāhmaṇa woman guilty of adultery with a Śūdra by throwing her to dogs and by forcible tonsure and riding on an ass in case of adultery with a Kṣatriya or Vaiśya. The Smṛticandrikāra, Parāśara-Mādhavīya and Vyavahāramayūkha quote a verse of Yama about a debtor, who, being able to pay, does not wantonly pay, being punished by taking twice the amount. Yama remarks that the order of saṁnyāsa is not allowed to women in the Vedas or in the śāstra⁴⁶⁷ (dharmaśāstra) and that her real dharma is to be the mother of children from one of her own caste. A Bṛhad-Yama is cited by the Mit. (on Yāj. III. 255 and 290), Haradatta and by Aparārka on prāyaścitta. Similarly a Laghu-Yama is cited by Haradatta and Aparārka and a Svalpa-Yama (probably same as Laghu-Yama) by the Smṛtiratnākara of Vedācārya.