History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.162.3

v4.c63.t1.162.3

A woman in the order of nature can hardly ever have an *aurasa* son beyond the age of fifty or so, but when a fiction is employed a woman can bring into existence a son even when she is 80 or 90. The Privy Council have approved of the Nagpur and Madras decisions recently in *Anant v. Shankar* 46 Bom. L. R. 1. They hold that a Hindu family cannot be brought to an end while it is possible in nature or law to add a male member to it or while there is still a potential mother if that mother in the way of nature or law brings in a new member. In *Ramchandra v. Shankar* 47 Bom. L. R. 121 (F. B.) the Privy Council decision in *Anant v. Shankar* has been followed and it is held that the decision in *Balu v. Lahoo* has been expressly overruled by the Privy Council. The consequences of these latest decisions will be most disastrous for Hindus. In Amarendra's case the P. C. state that there must be some limit to the power of a widow to adopt or some conditions in which it would be contrary to the spirit of the doctrine to admit its continuance or inequitable in the face of other rights to allow it to take effect (L. R. 60 I. A. 242 at p. 249). In *Madana Mohana v. Purshothama* L. R. 45 I. A. 156 the P. C. approving of *Ramkrishna v. Shamrao* 26 Bom. 526 (F. B.) held that, when a man dies leaving a widow and a son and that son dies leaving his own son or a widow to continue the line by adoption, the power of the former widow comes to an end and cannot be revived;