History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.100

v4.c63.t1.100

As regards gūḍhaja, kānīna and sahoḍha there is this to be said. They were the result of illicit connection; but some one had to maintain them, to bring them up and be their guardian. The smṛtis when they assign these as the sons of the husbands of the women of whom they are born are really providing for these matters of maintenance and guardianship. Bṛ. says that dattaka, apaviddha, krīta, kṛta, and śaudra, if of pure caste and pure actions, are middling, while the kṣetraja, paunarbhava, kānīna, sahoḍha and gūḍhaja are condemned by the good (S. B. E. 33 p. 376 verses 40-41).¹²³⁶ The kānīna was to be under the guardianship of the father of the girl (Yāj. II. 129) till she remained unmarried, but when she married the damsel's son came under the dominion of the person who married her (Manu IX. 172). The very fact that the kānīna was assigned to the husband who married the girl shows that this was done because it was deemed that by marrying such a girl the husband condoned her past lapses. Similarly in the case of *sahoḍha*, it was deemed that either the child must have been procreated by the husband himself before marriage or that he condoned the conduct of the wife. It appears to have been thought that when the husband (the party most concerned) did not openly object it was not open or allowable for any one else even by proof that the child was kānīna or sahoḍha to call for the abandonment of the child. Similar remarks apply to the gūḍhaja. As shown in H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 571-573 if the wife was guilty of adultery the husband had certain powers of correction over the wife, but if he chose to be complaisant, then the smṛtis did not compel him to disown or abandon the child. These very smṛtis (like Gautama, Vas., Nār.) that are very harsh on women for adultery allow the gūḍhaja, kānīna and sahoḍha to be secondary sons. So the only way in which these two attitudes can be reconciled is by holding that when the husband condones moral lapses on the part of the woman whom he had accepted as his wife the smṛtis provide for the maintenance, guardianship and succession of such offspring of illicit connection. Even among medieval commentators there was divergence about paunarbhava, kānīna, sahoḍha and gūḍhaja; Medhātithi on Manu IX. 181 holds that they are entitled to nothing but food and raiment in any case, while the Mit. (on Yāj. II. 132) holds that even the kānīna and the rest take the father's wealth in default of aurasa and the other kinds of sons. The Mit. (on Yāj. I. 90) however holds that kānīna, sahoḍha and gūḍhaja being the outcome of adultery cannot be savarṇa with the husband of their mother, are really different from savarṇa sons and even anuloma and pratiloma sons.