History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c28.s2.62

v2.c28.s2.62

It has been shown above (p. 518) that Āp. postulated the identity of husband and wife in religious matters and Manu IX. 45 declares that the husband is one with his wife. But this identity of husband and wife was not accepted by the ancient sages for secular or legal purposes. The rights of husband and wife as to each other's property and the liability of each for the debts of the other will be dealt with later on in detail. It may suffice here to point out that the wife was not ordinarily liable for the debts contracted by the husband nor was the husband liable for the debts contracted by the wife alone, unless the debt was for family purposes (Yāj. II. 46). Similarly the husband could exercise no dominion over the wife's own property (her *strīdhana* or *peculium*) except in a famine or for a necessary religious purpose, or in disease or when he was imprisoned (Yāj. II. 147). These rules prescribed centuries ago compare in their fairness or reasonableness most favourably with the rules of the English law¹³³⁴ (as they prevailed before the Married Women's Property Act of 1882, 45 and 46 Vict. chap. 75), whereby the husband by the mere fact of marriage acquired free-hold interest, during the joint lives of himself and his wife, in all estates of inheritance and life estates of which she was seised at the marriage or became seised during coverture, and an absolute interest in all the wife's personal chattels.