History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.478.5

v4.c63.t2.478.5

The difference between an avaruddhā dāsī and a bhujiṣyā is that the former is ordered to stay in the master's house, while the bhujiṣyā is not so ordered and secondly the avaruddhā is forbidden to have sexual intercourse with any one except the master, while the bhujiṣyā is not so forbidden, but she is to restrict herself to enjoyment by certain specified males (friends or men of the master's family) and not necessarily by the master alone. This is the meaning assigned to those words by Mitramiśra in his commentary¹⁵⁹⁶ (not his digest) on Yāj. II. 290. The Mit. itself indicates the meaning of 'niyata' by saying elsewhere that ownership springs from certain fixed sources (*niyatopāyakaṁ svatvaṁ* on Yāj. II. 114). It is respectfully submitted that the Privy Council gave a wrong interpretation of the word '*avaruddhā*' in *Bai Nagubai v. Bai Monghibai*¹⁵⁹⁷. Though slavery is now abolished in India there is no reason why the two characteristics of avaruddhā (viz. staying in the master's house and being exclusively kept by the master) stated by the Mit. should not have been strictly adhered to by the Privy Council, particularly when they were holding heirs liable for the maintenance of kept mistresses, which is hardly ever allowed in any other system of law.