History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.674

v4.c63.674

The general rule that the husband was not liable to pay the wife's debt had an exception viz. the husband was liable for the debts of the wife in the case of cowherds, vintners, actors, washermen and hunters (and the like) whose income depends on their wives and whose household expenses are defrayed by their wives (Yāj. II. 48, Viṣṇu Dh. S. VI. 37, Nār. IV. 19). Similarly the rule that the wife was not liable for the husband's debt had certain exceptions, viz. a debt of the husband which she promised to pay because he was dying or going abroad or which was contracted jointly with her husband⁷⁶³ (Yāj. II. 49, Nār. IV. 16-17). The Mit. on Yāj. II. 49 answers the objection raised by some that, as according to Manu VIII. 416 (= Udyogaparva 33. 64) the wife, son and slave are without property and whatever they earn is acquired for him to whom they belong, the wife would not be able to pay anything at all. The reply is that this verse of Manu does not mean that a wife or son can own no property at all, but all that it declares is that they have no independent power to dispose of their property.