History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s48.1

v1.c6.s48.1

The Mit. on Yāj. (I. 81) says that Bhāruci like Viśvarūpa held the view that the rule ‘ṛtau bhāryāṁ gacchet’ was a *niyama* and not a *parisaṁkhyā*. On Yāj. II 124 the Mit. says that the explanation of ‘the fourth share’ to be given to unmarried sisters offered by Asahāya and Medhātithi was the proper one and not that of Bhāruci. The Parāśaramādhavīya⁵⁵⁴ and the Sarasvatīvilāsa (para 133) inform us that Bhāruci was of opinion that unmarried sisters were only entitled to a provision for their marriage and were not entitled to a fourth share.