History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.358

v4.c63.t2.358

The Sm. C. does not give a defintion of strīdhana, but it does not adopt the interpretation of the word 'ādya' given by the Mit. Therefore it may be said that it is in line with the Dāyabhāga. The Par. M. III. p. 547¹⁵¹⁰ (another Madras authority) appears to follow the Mit., since it says: "‘ādya’ includes ‘ādhivedanika’ and what is acquired by inheritance, sale and the like." The Vivādacintāmaṇi (the leading authority in Mithilā) does not define strīdhana in general, but enumerates the several kinds of strīdhana described by Manu, Yāj., Viṣṇu, Kāt., and Devala and so is on a par with the Dāyabhāga. The V. Mayūkha divides strīdhana into two kinds, *pāribhāṣika* (technical) and *apāribhāṣika* (non-technical). The former comprises properties expressly stated to be strīdhana by the sages, while the latter includes all other property belonging to a woman (except what is called technical) and acquired by her by partition or cutting (sewing or other mechanical arts).¹⁵¹¹ This division is peculiar to the V. Mayūkha. The Vīramitrodaya (the paramount authority in the Benares school) agrees with Mit. as stated above.