History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c74.61

v5.c74.61

¹²⁸³ Strangely enough, the Calcutta High court has held that a widow cannot validly alienate a part of her husband's property inherited by her as heir for a pilgrimage to Benares; vide *Hari v. Bajrand* 13 C. W N. 544 at p. 547. But a gift to the temple of Jagannātha at Purī for *bhog* (offerings of cooked food) to the deity and for the maintenance of the priests there for the salvation of the husband and the members of his family and for the widow's own salvation was upheld by the Privy Council in *Sardar Singh v. Kunj Behari* 49 I. A. 383. As seen in note 1294 below, a person on returning from a pilgrimage had to honour and feed brāhmaṇas In *Dinanath v. Hrishikesh* 18 C. W. N. 1303, 1306, where a widow on returning from a pilgrimage to Gayā for the benefit of her husband's soul incurred a debt for feeding brāhmanas and her husband's relatives and alienated a portion of her husband's property, it was held that the debt was one for a spiritual purpose and was binding on the reversioners after the death of the widow.