WYAVASFHA-DARPANA. 742 what HUSBAND MAY HE DESERTED. 424. A wife may desert her husband when he is an outcast or degraded for sin.” ‘A husband who is not an outcast should not be forsaken by women desirous of happines in nother world.*—Srinad-bhāgavata. - And it being shown that a husband who is not degraded may not be forsaken, it is implied that ; is not incompetent to a wife to desert her husband when degraded for sin. adds certain other circumstances under which also, according to his dictum, a wife may 'sert her husband. They are as follows: "A husband may be forsakon by his wife, if he be an abandoned sinner (a), an herotical mendicant, impotent, or degraded, or afflicted with phthisis (e), or if he have been (long) absent in a foreign xuntry (u).* - (a) “Abandoned sinner"] expelled, in the legal form, from virtuous intercourse." (e) “Afflicted with phthisis”] suffering under the disease called phthisis.”— The Ratnākara. (u) " If he be absent in a foreign country,” if he have gone to a foreign region.” “If the husband be missing, dead, quit the condition of a householder, he impotent, and graded for sin, in (any of) these five calamities it is lawful for a woman to have another husband."— \us Parāsara declaring it lawful for a woman to take another husband in case her (former) husband h one of the said circumstances, afortiori then it must be inferred that according to his opinion a oman may Her her husband when so circumstanced. The opinion universally approved of, however, is that a husband who is degraded or an outcast ay be deserted with impunity - A But although a married pair can desert each other under the circumstances above noticed, et desertion does not render their marriage dissolved; for Manu says: “Neither by sale nor sertion can a wife be released from her husband; thus we fully acknowledge the law enacted
- Vide Coleb. Dig. vol. Il. pp. 418, 470,
Sir William Macnaghten says:– “Insanity, impotence, and degradation, are, |್ಲಿ? the only cir. imstances, under which her (a wife's) desertion of her husband would not be considered as a punishable fence.” It does not however appeal from any text book that a husband's insanity is a justifiable round for his wife's deserting him. The text of Manu (cited in Colebrooke's Digest, vol. II. p. 12)which is refferred to by the learned gentleman as authority for the above opinion, speaks of apersion om a husband who is mad, degraded, an eunuch, impotent, or afflicted with leprosy, or a like disease ; ld Kulliska Bhatta interprets the phrasošhe who is averse from a husband,' by '8he who attends not a. usband.’ Jagannātha (author of the origiso of the said Digest, to: follows Kulliska and thus inter. reta the phriae: 'aversion'—want of diligent attention, not absoluta desertion.' See ante, p. 740. Vyavastha'. Authoritu
