History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.110

v4.c63.t2.110

¹³⁵⁵ Vide *Vithu v. Govind* 22 Bom. 321 (F. B.) and *Murugayi v. Viramakali* 1 Mad. 226; but *Bhola v. Kausilla* 55 All. 24 (F. B.) holds that a woman belonging to a caste in which remarriage of widows is allowed by custom does not forfeit on remarriage the estate of the first husband which she took as his widow, the principal reasons being that there is no express text about forfeiture on subsequent unchastity and that it would be absurd to hold that a widow, who, on the P. C. ruling in 7 I. A., does not forfeit the estate taken as heir by subsequent unchastity, should be liable to forfeit it by remarriage (which presumes that she wants to live a decent life). Looking to the expressed object of the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, section 2 should not have been so interpreted as to apply to widows who could remarry according to caste custom before the Act.