History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.456

v4.c63.t2.456

A brief reference to the modern case law on this point may be made here. In *Bhikubai v. Hariba*¹⁵⁷⁰ Sir Lallubhai Shah (after an elaborate examination of ancient and medieval authorities and decided cases) held that a widow who had been unchaste, but who is proved to have given up the life of unchastity is entitled to bare maintenance. In *Lakhmichand v. Anandi* the Privy Council make the general observation:¹⁵⁷¹ 'It is true that the right of a Hindu widow to maintenance is conditional upon her leading a life of chastity and that she loses that right if she becomes unchaste'. In *Kisanji v. Lakshmi*¹⁵⁷² it was held that subsequent unchastity disentitled a widow from recovering maintenance, even though it is claimable under an agreement made with the deceased husband's father and brother. In *Musammat Gangu v. Ghasita* 1 All. 46 (F. B.) it has been held that unchastity does not incapacitate a daughter from inheriting strīdhana. In *Angammal v. Venkata* 26 Mad. 509 the same rule was laid down.