History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.442

v4.c63.t2.442

The manager of a joint Hindu family is under a legal obligation to maintain all male members of the family, their wives and children. Nārada states ¹⁵⁶³ that if any one among several (undivided) brothers dies without issue or becomes an ascetic the rest should take the estate and give maintenance to his wives till their death, provided they keep the bed of their husband unsullied but that they may cut off the maintenance if they (wives) behave otherwise. This is because the surviving brothers succeed to the estate in which the deceased had an interest during his lifetime. This is made quite clear ¹⁵⁶⁴ in the Sm. C. explaining a verse of Nār. viz. 'widows that are virtuous must be maintained with food and raiment by the eldest brother (of the deceased) or by the father-in-law or by any other gotraja' on which it remarks: "The words 'by him who takes the estate' must be understood before all the words such as 'the eldest brother'". Kāt. (922) states, 'when the husband goes to heaven the wife is entitled only to food and raiment if he was unseparated or she may get a share in (ancestral) property till her death'. The Sm. C. remarks that as maintenance depends upon taking wealth, Kāt. provides two alternatives. In cases too numerous to cite this has been followed by all High Courts. Similarly an heir is bound to maintain out of the estate taken by him those persons whom the deceased was legally or morally bound to maintain. Those persons who are excluded from inheritance or partition are entitled to maintenance and their virtuous wives and unmarried daughters also are entitled to be maintained (Yāj. II. 140-142 Manu IX. 202, Vas. 17. 54). The Baud. Dh. S. (II. 2. 43-46)¹⁵⁶⁵ provides that those who are past undertaking transactions (i. e. are very old) should be given food and raiment and also those who are blind, idiotic, impotent, immersed in vice and suffering from (incurable) diseases, and those that engage in prohibited acts, except the *patita* and his issue. Devala (quoted in the V. Mayūkha p. 165) has a similar passage, 'when the father is dead (or even when being alive he makes a partition) the impotent, the leper, the lunatic, the idiot, the blind, an outcast and his offspring, a person wearing a heretical sect mark—these are not entitled to a share of the heritage; to these except the *patita* food and raiment are to be given'. These persons suffer from a personal disqualification and maintenance is given to them in lieu of a share not because their status is denied but because they are incapable of management and enjoyment of property. Vide *Raja Ram Rao v. Raja of Pittapur*.¹⁵⁶⁶