History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.373.2

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.