History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.1255

v4.c63.1255

All the smṛtis say that those who are deprived of their rights to partition on account of the several defects mentioned are entitled to maintenance out of the family property as long as they are alive (Gaut. 28. 41, Vas. 17. 54, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 15. 33, Manu IX. 202, Yāj. II. 140 etc.). If the disqualified persons want to marry or are married, then their sonless wives that are chaste should be maintained (Yāj. II. 142), but those that are unchaste should be driven out and so also those wives that are hostile to the family; but the Mit. adds that even hostile wives of disqualified heirs must be maintained provided they are chaste. If the disqualified person has an *aurasa* son or *kṣetraja* son1171a who is free from the defects mentioned above (such as impotence) he becomes entitled to a share of the joint family property and the daughters of disqualified persons are entitled to be maintained in the family and provision must be made for their marriages (Manu IX. 203, Yāj. II. 141). It follows that disqualified heirs could not adopt, since Yāj. II. 141 mentions only aurasa and kṣetraja sons. Many of the smṛtis did not allow even maintenance to the *patita* and his son (vide Baud. Dh. S. II. 2. 46, Kauṭ. III. 5, Devala, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 15. 35-36). Coparceners were prevented from claiming a share at a partition if at the time of the partition they were labouring under the defects mentioned above. But if after partition¹¹⁷² the defect which disqualified a member be removed by medical treatment or the like then the disqualified member was entitled to reopen the partition on the analogy of a posthumous son born after partition. So also if a person is quite free from defect when he takes at a partition a share in joint family property or inherits, subsequently supervening defect does not divest the property once vested in him.