History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.373.1

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.