পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/১৮৯

wxvASTHA&DARÉANA. 63 “To women, the heritage of their husbands is pronounced applicable to use ; (let not women on any account make waste of their husbands' property.)" this text of the Maha bharata, and the followingof Kaoxa’vana : “The widow shall enjoy her husband's property, restraining herself until death, (after her, let the heirs take it,)” declaring frugal enjoyment to be the only fruit derived by the widow from her husband's property, forbid the transfer of such property to another; whence- - * - - 29. It fully appears that the widow's disposal of her husband's property at pleasure, otherwise than by the simple use of it, or by donation for the benefit of her lord, is invalid. Coleb. Dig. Vol. III. p. 465. “A widow should live in (the practice of) austerities with extinguished passions, refraining from pleasurable food, and bed, and other gratifications which she may desire, because she ought to devote herself, being as it were the property of her husband, to his sole service. In like manner she must not dispose of other property of her lord, unless for his benefit; she ought to observe the rigid duty of carefully preserving it. This also is a duty strictly incumbent on her not to appropriate the wealth of her lord to civil purposes, any more than consecrated property. Yet if she inadvertently make a gift or other alienation it is valid (though blameable) ; however, the king, informed by the heirs, should duly punish her, not the accepter of that donation ; for no law authorizes his punishment. Such is the rule of decision established by modern opinions”. This in truth is a new doctrinc, and seems to have been introduced by Jaganna’tila himself under the pretended sanction of the modern Pandits : it is no where declared by them that a gift or other alienation, though inadvertently made by the widow of her husband's property for any purpose other than to benefit her departed husband is valid. On the contrary, the courts have invariably, in conformity with the opinion of the modern Pandits, declared such alienation to be totally invalid, as will be apparent from thc preccdents presently quoted. - If nothing ought to be given by a wife, may she, or may she not, give money to the king by way of fine when she has committed a sin deserving pecuniary punishment 2 . She must necessarily pay the fine by way of atonement: the prohibition relates to gifts (and payments) other than such as are positively ordained. In like manner, if unable to undergo abstinence or other penance, she must give a milky cow or the like, and gifts, &c. must be made for the sake of attaining the region of bliss-Jagannatia. See Coleb. Digo Vol. III. p. 466. 30. Should it happen that a widow is unable to maintain herself, or to discharge the debts of her husband, or to perform those acts which are indispensable, unless she sell the whole of the property inherited by her, she is allowed to do so by disposing of the whole : but in order to enable her to perform such religious and other acts as, although bene ficial, are optional, she may dispose of only a moderate portion of the inheritance. Vyavasthá Vyavasthá