History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.111

v4.c63.t1.111

*Aurasa*. Baud. Dh. S. II. 2. 14, Manu IX. 166, Vas. 17. 13, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 15. 2, Kauṭ. III. 7 and others define the aurasa as the son procreated by a man himself from his wife married acc. to sacramental forms prescribed by the śāstra. From Āp. (quoted above in n. 1227) and Baud. it follows that the aurasa is only the son procreated on a wife of the same varṇa as that of the husband; but this was the purists' view. Others including such medieval works as the Mit. (on Yāj. II. 133), the Pārijāta and Aparārka hold that even the son procreated on a wife married in the anuloma order¹²⁴² (e. g. the son of a brāhmaṇa from a kṣatriya wife or of a kṣatriya from a vaiśya caste wife) was also *aurasa*. The exception was the son of a brāhmaṇa from a śūdra wife, who was called *śaudra* or *pāraśava* and distinguished from the technical aurasa. From the definition of aurasa given by all smṛti writers (and the dicta of such commentaries as the Mit.) it follows that in order to be an aurasa the procreation and the birth of the son must both be after the marriage. But the Privy Council held long ago in *Pedda Amani v Zemindar of Marungapuri* (1 I. A. 282, 293) that procreation after marriage is not distinctly necessary for legitimacy as a son even according to the ancient texts, that to hold so would be an inconvenient doctrine and that the Hindu Law is the same in that respect as the English Law.¹²⁴³