History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.114
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.114
- Language
- English
v4.c63.t2.114.1
The rights of the widow in property inherited by her from her husband are limited. Kauṭ. III. 2 was¹³⁵⁷ probably the first to propound clearly the characteristics of the Hindu widow's estate and the verse of Kāt. quoted below is remarkably close to the words of Kauṭ. The Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana 47. 24) states that women have only the right to enjoy the estate of their husbands and that they should not waste or destroy the husband's estate (by gift, sale &c.). Bṛ.¹³⁵⁸ (S. B. E. vol. 33 pp. 377-78 verses 50-51 and 53) states: 'when the husband is separate his widow takes all his various kinds of property such as a pledge, except immovable property. After having received movable and immovable property, gold, inferior metals, grain, liquids and clothes the widow shall cause (her husband's) monthly, six-monthly and annual śrāddhas to be performed. Let her honour with funeral offerings and pious charity her husband's paternal uncle, *gurus* (elders), daughter's son, sister's son and maternal uncle as also aged or helpless persons, guests and women'. Mādhava (Par. M. III. p. 536) explains that 'except immovable property' means that she is prohibited from making a sale of immovable property without the consent of the male kinsmen. The V. Mayūkha (p. 138) accepts this interpretation and modern courts have done the same. In *Damodardas v. Purmanandas* 7 Bom. 155 it was held that a widow to whom movable property was bequeathed by the will of her husband takes it absolutely.
v4.c63.t2.114.2
But here the movable property was not *inherited* by her and as it was a bequest by will it became her strīdhana according to Nār. (q. by V. M. on p. 155). Besides, this was a case from Bombay Island and was governed by the law of V. Mayūkha. In some early cases in Bombay it had been held that a widow in Western India under the Mitākṣarā had absolute power over the movable property inherited by her from her husband. In *Gadadhar v. Chandrabhagabai* 17 Bom. 690 (F. B.) it was held that under the law of the Mitākṣarā a widow has no power to bequeath moveable property inherited by her from her husband and that to that extent the decision in *Damodar v. Purmanandas* must be treated as of no authority if it be interpreted to have decided the point in that way. In *Sha Chamanlal v. Doshi Ganesh* 28 Bom. 453 it was decided that even under the Mayūkha a widow inheriting movable property from her husband has no power to dispose of it by will. Lastly in *Pandharinath v. Govind* 32 Bom. 59 it was held, after an elaborate examination of authorities, that a widow is not under the Mitākṣarā competent to make a gift of the movables inherited by her from her husband and it was said (on p. 75) that possibly with the spread of education amongst, and the general emancipation of, their women Hindus may be led to call in aid the relief of Legislature. In cases arising under the Mayūkha a widow may dispose of movable property inherited by her from her husband by gift *inter vivos* but not by will.
v4.c63.t2.114.3
Kāty. ¹³⁵⁹ (921, 924-925) propounds the limitations of the widow's rights as follows: 'A sonless widow, preserving the bed of her husband (unsullied) and residing with her elders and being self-controlled, should enjoy (her husband's property) till her death; after her the (other) heirs (of the husband) would get it. A wife who preserves (the honour of) the family would get the share of her husband when he is dead till her death, but she has no power to make a gift, sale or mortgage. A widow engrossed in religious observances and fasts, fixed in the vow of celibacy, always intent on restraining her senses and making gifts goes to heaven even though sonless'.¹³⁶⁰ These verses show that the widow was to enjoy the income of her husband's property till her death; that she could not sell or mortgage or give away immovable property without the consent of the heirs that would come after her and that for religious and charitable purposes or those that conduce to the spiritual welfare of her husband a widow had large powers of disposition. These rules have been accepted by modern decisions; vide *Collector of Masulipatam v. Cavaly Vencata* 8 Moo. I. A. 500 at p. 551 for an oftquoted passage about the widow's powers of disposal. There is a large volume of case law on the widow's powers of alienation, on what are religious and charitable purposes and about the consent of the kinsmen, which have to be passed over here.
v4.c63.t2.114.4
The heir or heirs expectant on the death of a widow are called reversioners or reversionary heirs in the decided cases. There is no exact Sanskrit word to convey the same idea except 'dāyāda' that occurs in Kāt. quoted above and in D. B., which makes it clear that the reversioners take the estate after the widow's estate ends (by death, remarriage, surrender &c.). The doctrine of the surrender by the widow of her estate in favour of the next heirs (the reversioners) whose estate is said to be accelerated is based on meagre foundations viz. the words of Kāt. and the D. B. quoted in n. 1359. Judicial decisions, however, have raised a stupendous structure on these slight foundations; but they are passed over here.