History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c28.s2.64

v2.c28.s2.64

Nārada ¹³³⁵ (strīpuṁsa, v. 89) does not allow the husband or wife to lodge a complaint against one another with their relations or with the king. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 294 remarks 'though a judicial proceeding between husband and wife as plaintiff and defendant before the king is forbidden, still, if the king comes to know personally or indirectly of wrong done by the one to the other, the king must bring round the husband or the wife to the path of duty by appropriate punishment, otherwise ¹³³⁶ the king incurs sin'. There were certain matters of which the king could take cognisance without the complaint of anybody: they were called *aparādhas* (they are ten) among which were included the murder of a woman, varṇasaṁkara, adultery, pregnancy of a widow from some person other than the husband, abortion ¹³³⁷ &c. We have seen (p. 569) that Yāj. I. 76, Nārada (strīpuṁsa, v. 95) make the husband liable to pay one-third of his estate or a fine for deserting a virtuous wife and there are many such provisions about the matters affecting the husband and wife in which the king interfered. In England ¹³³⁸ at Common Law a wife could not sue her husband in tort (till the Married Women's Property Act) nor could a husband sue the wife in tort.