DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0266
THE HISTORY OF FEMALE PROPERTY.
251
marks prove that Apararka, though he has followed a differ- Lecture
ent reading, managed to arrive at the same conclusions as &■
Vijnanecvara by a different process of reasoning. What is
particularly important, he expressly includes in the term
Stridhana all property obtained by partition or inheritance
by a woman whether in her maidenhood, during coverture,
or as a widow. It should also be mentioned that Apa-
rarka, in commenting on the text of Katyayana regarding
the maximum amount of donations of Stridhana, says it'
relates to donations made in the course of one year. This
wide interpretation, which has been adopted by most other
Commentators, tends to illustrate the prevailing tendency
to extend.the original sphere of Stridhana property.
The practical importance of the question regarding the Dominion
constituents and extent of Stridhana arises first in the ^ana '
law regarding a woman’s dominion over her Stridhana and
other property, and secondly, in the rules regarding the
descent of Stridhana. Reserving the latter subject for
another Lecture, I pass to a consideration of the manner in
which the rules of the Smritis regarding a woman’s domi-
nion over her property have been worked out in the Digests
and Commentaries.. It has been stated before that the
Mitakshara adheres to its definition of Stridhana throughout
the Section on that sort of property, and that, accordingly,
the rules of the Mitakshara as to the exceptional cases in
which the husband is permitted to make use of his wife’s
Stridhana relate to Stridhana in its widest, not in its tech-
nical, sense. Against other relatives than her husband, a
woman’s power over her property may be more consider-
able than this, but it is subject, of, course, to the ordinary
limitations incumbent on her proprietary right, which may
be gathered from the general rules as to the dependence of
women. On this point Vijnanepvara expresses a very strong
opinion in the untranslated part of the Mitakshara. In
commenting on a text of Yajnavalkya, -which corresponds
exactly to the well-known text of Manu regarding the
perpetual dependence of women (IX. 9), he says (Calc, ed.,
fol. 12, p. 1):—“ Before marriage the father shall restrain
a woman from wickedness, and after it the husband, failing
him the sons, and in her old age,-the said relatives being
deficient, the distant kinsmen ; on failure of any relatives,
the King according to the text: If both the husband’s and
father’s race are extinct, let the King be the protector and
guardian of a woman. Therefore, women are not independent
251
marks prove that Apararka, though he has followed a differ- Lecture
ent reading, managed to arrive at the same conclusions as &■
Vijnanecvara by a different process of reasoning. What is
particularly important, he expressly includes in the term
Stridhana all property obtained by partition or inheritance
by a woman whether in her maidenhood, during coverture,
or as a widow. It should also be mentioned that Apa-
rarka, in commenting on the text of Katyayana regarding
the maximum amount of donations of Stridhana, says it'
relates to donations made in the course of one year. This
wide interpretation, which has been adopted by most other
Commentators, tends to illustrate the prevailing tendency
to extend.the original sphere of Stridhana property.
The practical importance of the question regarding the Dominion
constituents and extent of Stridhana arises first in the ^ana '
law regarding a woman’s dominion over her Stridhana and
other property, and secondly, in the rules regarding the
descent of Stridhana. Reserving the latter subject for
another Lecture, I pass to a consideration of the manner in
which the rules of the Smritis regarding a woman’s domi-
nion over her property have been worked out in the Digests
and Commentaries.. It has been stated before that the
Mitakshara adheres to its definition of Stridhana throughout
the Section on that sort of property, and that, accordingly,
the rules of the Mitakshara as to the exceptional cases in
which the husband is permitted to make use of his wife’s
Stridhana relate to Stridhana in its widest, not in its tech-
nical, sense. Against other relatives than her husband, a
woman’s power over her property may be more consider-
able than this, but it is subject, of, course, to the ordinary
limitations incumbent on her proprietary right, which may
be gathered from the general rules as to the dependence of
women. On this point Vijnanepvara expresses a very strong
opinion in the untranslated part of the Mitakshara. In
commenting on a text of Yajnavalkya, -which corresponds
exactly to the well-known text of Manu regarding the
perpetual dependence of women (IX. 9), he says (Calc, ed.,
fol. 12, p. 1):—“ Before marriage the father shall restrain
a woman from wickedness, and after it the husband, failing
him the sons, and in her old age,-the said relatives being
deficient, the distant kinsmen ; on failure of any relatives,
the King according to the text: If both the husband’s and
father’s race are extinct, let the King be the protector and
guardian of a woman. Therefore, women are not independent