History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.373
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.373
- Language
- English
v4.c63.t2.373.1
Kāt. (914)¹⁵²⁰ has a similar verse which says that he may return strīdhana wealth if he chooses to do so when it is used by him in a disease or in calamities or when harassed by creditors. Kauṭ. (III. 2 p. 152) is closely similar to Yāj. and adds that the woman can spend it without blame for the maintenance of herself, her son and daughter-in-law or when the husband has gone abroad without making provision for the maintenance of these. Kauṭ (III. 2. p. 152) further provides¹⁵²¹ that there should be no complaint (by the wife) as regards the expenditure of strīdhana made more than three years before by joint action of the husband and wife when they have given birth to two children (or to twins) and when the marriage has been in the most approved forms (*brāhma* and the other three), that when strīdhana has been expended by (the husband and wife) that are married in the *gāndharva* or *āsura* form both should be made to restore it with interest and that what is expended when the marriage is in the *rākṣasa* or *paiśāca* form the expenditure of strīdhana should be dealt with as theft. The meaning of 'mithunaṁ prajātayoḥ' and 'trivarṣopabhuktaṁ' in Kauṭ. is not quite clear. It is probable that Kauṭilya lays down a rule of limitation. If more than three years are allowed to pass without complaint, then no complaint made later (than three years after the expenditure) would be entertained.
v4.c63.t2.373.2
So also if there be no children of the marriage and the husband expends strīdhana without objection by the wife then also no complaint would be entertained as the restraint on alienation of strīdhana by the husband and wife was meant for the benefit and advancement of the children. None of the later smṛtis like those of Yāj., Nār. or Kāt. makes these distinctions and so Kauṭ. probably represents an early stage in the evolution of the husband's dominion over strīdhana. These later smṛtis hold that the husband and wife may be entirely separate as regards their properties and as a general rule the husband's debts are not binding on the wife's properties nor are the wife's separate debts binding on the husband or his properties (Yāj. II. 46, Viṣṇu Dh. S. VI. 31–32). But the same smṛtis make it clear that under certain distressing circumstances the wife's separate property was liable for the maintenance or debts of the husband. The Mit. expressly states1521a that if the husband uses his wife's strīdhana under any other circumstances (than those specified by Yāj. II. 147 and Kāt.) then he has to return it, that no relation except the husband has any right to use a woman's strīdhana during her lifetime even in distress or disease &c. and relies on Manu VIII. 29 which requires the righteous king to award the punishment for theft against such relatives as appropriate the wealth of women. The Sm. C. and V. Mayūkha follow the Mit., but the V. R. and V. C.
v4.c63.t2.373.3
hold that Kātyāyana's verse applies not only to the husband, but also to the son, father and brothers of the woman. Kāt. (912–913) provides1521a that if any one of the four persons (q. in n. 1515 above) forcibly consumes strīdhana he should be made to return it with interest and should be also liable to fine (or punishment) and that if any one of these consumes strīdhana amicably after securing her consent then he would be liable to return only the principal amount, when he becomes well-off (i. e. able to pay). Devala¹⁵²² also states, 'if the husband makes a gift of strīdhana without cause or enjoys it, he must pay it back with interest, but he may use the strīdhana of his wife for relieving the distress of a son (and also of the family, acc. to V. Mayūkha). Kāt. (908)¹⁵²³ adds a special rule, 'if the husband has two wives and he does not reside with one of them (i. e. neglects her), he should be forcibly made to return (the strīdhana of his neglected wife) by the king even though she bestowed it upon him through affection.' The texts of Kāt., Devala and Nār. quoted above about the dominion of the woman over her strīdhana and about the husband's power over it are authoritative in all schools even now. Manu IX. 199¹⁵²⁴ provides: ‘wives should not spend (for their own benefit) from the property of their families which is common to many, nor from their own property without the husband's permission.’ The V.
v4.c63.t2.373.4
Mayūkha interprets this as meaning that she has no independent power even over ādhivedanika and the like, but this would be opposed to the express texts of Kāt., Vyāsa and Devala. Therefore the words must be taken as only recommendatory.