[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India)](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930) › v2.c28.11 # History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c28.11 History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c28.11 - **Language:** English ### [v2.c28.11.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v2.c28.11.1) recommends that the king should bring round to the proper path by inflicting heavy fines a husband who abandons a wife that is obedient, not harsh of tongue, vigilant (in household work), chaste and endowed with sons. Even Kauṭ. (III. 2) prescribes that a husband should wait for eight years (before marrying another) if his wife gives birth to no child after one delivery or is sonless or is barren; he should wait for ten if she bears only still-born children, twelve years if she gives birth to daughters only. Then if he is anxious for a son he may marry another. If he violates these rules he must pay her gratuity, some wealth as strīdhana and money (prescribed to be given) on supersession and besides a fine (to the king) of 24 paṇas'.¹²⁷⁸ So far Kauṭilya appears to have only stated the ideal, because he follows up this remark by another statement which probably represented the commonly held popular view 'a man may marry several wives after giving \*śulka\* and strīdhana to those to whom nothing had been given at the time of marriage and money on supersession (\*ādhivedanika\*) and suitable provision for livelihood; for women are (married) for procreating sons.' Though Āp. and others held up the ideal of monogamy and Nārada and others prescribed a fine for marrying a second wife without sufficient cause, it is extremely doubtful whether a man was ever punished by the king for so doing. Manu V. 80 and Yāj. I. ### [v2.c28.11.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v2.c28.11.2) 80 both say that a husband may supersede a wife (and marry another) if she drinks wine, suffers from a disease (of long standing), is deceitful, is extravagant in expenditure, speaks harsh words, and gives birth to female children only. Manu V. 81 and Baud. Dh. S. II. 2. 65 allow a husband to marry another woman at once if the first is harsh of tongue. Devala ¹²⁷⁹ quoted in the Gṛ. R. says that the śūdra may have only one wife, a vaiśya two, a kṣatriya three and a brāhmaṇa four, but a king may have as many as he desires. This only reflected the prevailing practice of kings. The Ādiparva ¹²⁸⁰ gravely remarks 'to have many wives is no \*adharma\* on the part of men, but to violate the duty owed to the first husband would be a great \*adharma\* in the case of women.' The Mahābhārata (Mausala-parva V. 6) tells us that Vāsudeva¹²⁸¹ (Kṛṣṇa) had sixteen thousand wives. Several kings had in historic times as many as a hundred wives. For example, the Cedi king Gāṅgeyadeva alias Vikramāditya is said to have obtained \*mukti\* (salvation) at Prayāga with his hundred wives¹²⁸² (vide Jabalpur plate of Yaśaḥkarṇadeva dated 1122 A. D. in E. I. vol. II. p. 4 and the Khaira plates of the same king in E. I. vol. XII. p. 205). In Bengal the evils of Kulinism are well known. ### [v2.c28.11.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v2.c28.11.3) The reasons for this treatment of women were many, such as the great spiritual importance of sons, early marriages and consequent illiteracy of women, the spread of the idea of the ceremonial impurity of women and their being equated with śūdras and lastly the idea of the complete dependence of women on men. One must not be carried away, however, by the notion that marrying many wives was either very common or was not looked down upon. Steele (in 'Law and Custom of Hindoo Castes,' first published in 1826) who had the most unique opportunities for observing the practices of numerous castes in the Dekhan in the first decades of the 19th century writes (p. 168, ed. of 1868) 'a man may marry as many wives as his inclination or circumstances allow. Marriages in succession, in consequence of the death of a former wife, are very common; but polygamy is not usual except on account of the barrenness of the first wife. It is practised in the Koonbee castes'. Vide also Imperial Gazetteer of India, vol. I (ed. of 1907) p. 482 'Although in theory polygamy is allowed, in practice a second wife is rarely taken while the first is alive and in India as a whole there are only 1011 wives to every 1000 husbands so that even if no husbands have more than two wives all but 11 per thousand must be monogamous'. The state of the modern case law is unsatisfactory. ### [v2.c28.11.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v2.c28.11.4) The Bombay High Court has held that the mere fact that the husband has married a second wife would not entitle the first wife to refuse to stay with the husband. Vide \*Motilal v. Chanchal\*, 4 Bom. L. R. 107. In \*Virasami v. Appasami\*, 1 Madras High Court Reports, p. 375, the court held that a Hindu may marry any number of wives, although he may have a wife or wives living. It is submitted with great respect that that is not the ideal or the view of the best writers, nor is such a view held by the majority of Indian jurists of ancient and medieval times. Modern opinion of educated people is most favourable to making marriages monogamous and efforts are being made to secure absolute monogamy by legislative action. For example, the Madras Nambudri Act (Madras Act XXI of 1933) forbids a Nambudri brāhmaṇa from marrying a second wife when the first is living except in three cases viz. (1) when the first wife is afflicted with an incurable disease for over five years, (2) when she has not borne a child within ten years of marriage, and (3) when she becomes an outcast. --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v2.c28.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v2.c28.11) · Pramāṇa