History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.1260

v4.c63.1260

Gaut. 28. 43 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 15. 37 provide¹¹⁷⁴ that the sons of *pratiloma* unions (i. e. of a man with a woman of a higher class) are to be dealt with like the sons of a brāhmaṇa from a śūdra woman i. e. they would be entitled to maintenance from their father, though pratiloma unions were condemned. Kāt. (862-864) provides that the son of a woman married out of her order, one who is born of a *sagotra* union and one who is an apostate from the order of ascetics do not obtain ancestral wealth; but the son of a woman married in the wrong order takes the ancestral wealth if he is of the same class as his father, and the son of a woman who is not of the same caste as the husband (but of a lower caste) and is married in the proper order takes the wealth of the father. But the son of a woman united with a man in the reverse order of castes does not take the ancestral estate; but the approved view is that he should be given food and raiment till his death by the kinsmen. In case there are no kinsmen such a son takes the whole wealth of his father and if the father left no wealth kinsmen are not bound to maintain him.