History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c30.27

v2.c30.27

There was difference of opinion as to whom the child of niyoga belonged. Vas. Dh. S. 17. 6 expressly refers to this divergence. The first view was that the child belonged to the begetter; this view would cut at the very root of the purpose for which niyoga was recommended. Nirukta¹⁴²⁶ III. 1-3 supports this view and relies on Ṛg. VII. 4. 7-8. Gaut. 18. 9 and Manu IX. 181 state the same rule. Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 5 says that according to a Brāhmaṇa text the son belongs to the begetter. The second view was that if there was an agreement between the elders of a widow and the person appointed or between the husband himself and the begetter that the child should belong to the husband, then the son belonged to the latter. Vide Gaut. 18. 10-11, Vas. 17. 8, Ādiparva 104. 6.¹⁴²⁷ A third view was that the son belonged to both the begetter and the owner of the wife. This is the view of Nārada (strīpuṁsa 58), Yāj. II. 127, Manu IX. 53, Gaut. 18. 13.