History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.1262

v4.c63.1262

Provision must also be made before ordering partition in a suit for partition by a brother for the marriage expenses of the unmarried sister or sisters of the brothers. Here there has been a great divergence of views among the writers of digests and commentaries. Kauṭ. III. 5 (quoted below in *n.* 1181), Viṣṇu Dh. S. 18. 35 and 15. 31 and Bṛ. simply state that wealth for the marriage expenses of the unmarried sisters must be set apart. But Manu IX. 118, Yāj. II. 124 and Kāt. (858)¹¹⁷⁵ state that the brothers should get their unmarried sisters married by giving them one fourth share. The Mit. explains¹¹⁷⁶ that this does not mean that each brother is to give one fourth of his share to the sister (for in that case if there are five brothers and one unmarried sister she may get more than each brother) but that the unmarried sister is to get one fourth of what she would have got if she were a male and that if a person has sons and daughters from wives of different classes then the unmarried daughter of the wife of each class will take one fourth of what her brother from the same mother would have taken. The Mit. further adds that one should not explain that the word "one fourth" is not to be taken literally and that the unmarried sister gets only as much as is necessary for her marriage, since such an explanation is opposed to the express words of Manu IX. 118 and since Manu declaress sinfulness as the consequence of not giving one fourth share. The Mit. informs us that its explanation was the same as that of Asahāya and Medhātithi and that Bhāruci gave another explanation (viz. that an unmarried sister was entitled to as much wealth as would be necessary for her marriage and not to a definite share ). The Dāyabhāga held the opinion¹¹⁷⁷ that if ancestral wealth was small, the provision for the marriage of the unmarried daughter should be made by giving her a fourth share but if the wealth was ample then she should get only as much as was necessary for her marriage. The Sm. C., V. R. p. 494, V. C. p. 134 follow the view of Bhāruci, while the V. M. (p. 106), Madanaratna and V. P. (p. 456 ff) follow the Mit. The former group particularly relies on the texts of Devala¹¹⁷⁸ (wealth necessary for marriage should be given to unmarried daughters from the paternal estate), Śaṅkha (when partition of heritage takes place the unmarried daughter takes the maidenly trinkets, wealth for her marriage expenses and strīdhana) and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 15. 31. In modern times the Courts allow no share to unmarried daughters but only provision for marriage expenses and this too is restricted to the unmarried sister of a person who requires or sues for partition and does not hold good as to the daughters of brothers or other collaterals¹¹⁷⁹. In *Bhagavati Shukul v. Ram Jatan* 45 All. 297 it was held (at p. 299) that "quarter share" in the text means as much money as will suffice for marriage expenses and that where the daughter was a cripple and blind and all the property was worth Rs. 500 an alienation of the whole of it by the widowed mother for raising a dowry for the daughter was justifiable.