পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/২৫৫

vyAvASTHA-DARPANA I 29 husband's relatives.” I will read the answer to the eighth question put, which will explain what the Hindu law is upon the subject ; and in that, it appears, the other Pandits who were called in agreed, or at least, they expressed no objection to the opinion pronounced. The question put is this, “ If a widow, for a just cause, ceases to reside with the family of her husband, does she thereby forfeit her right of succession to her deceased husband's estate 2* The answer is ; ** If a widow, from any cause other than unchaste purposes, ceases to reside with her husband's family, and takes up her abode in the family of her parents, her right would not be forfeited.” Now, it was not pretended in the case, that she had removed from the protection of her husband's family for unchaste purposes ; she was only of the age of 14 years at the death of her husband ; his brothers were young men ; and she thought it more prudent and decorous, to retire from their protection and live with her mother and her family, after the husband's death : therefore it appears quite clear, from the answers given by the Pandits, that she did not forfeit the right of succession to her husband's estate, on account of removing from the brothers of her late hfsband; that they had no right to insist upon her not withdrawing from them, in order to put herself under the protection of her mother ; and therefore there appears to be no foundation, to that extent, for the appeal. - Now the authorities cited in the Court below, and before your Lordships, were two books of great authority, the Viva da Chinta znani, and the Vτυα da Ratna kara, with two other books, called the Da yabhaga and the Daoyatatna, said to be the leading authorities in Bengal, in which part of India this question arose. Whether we refer to them or to the opinion delivered by the Pandits, I say, all of these authorities concur in this proposition, that whatever may be the extent of power and control, over the movable or immovable property of the deceased husband, she is entitled to the possession of both, and cannot be deprived of it by the husband's relations. * I will refer to some of the answers of the Pandits which confirm the proposition. They are first. asked : “If a II indu widow succeed to the property of her husband dying without male issue, what interest docs she take in his immovable property, and what interest in his movable property "' They say “According to the Dayabha ga and other Shāstras prevalent in Bengal,there is no distinction in this instance between movable or immovable property ; the widow as a life interest in both.” They are asked, “IHas a widow so succeeding, an absolute interest in the property of her husband, cither moveable or immovable 7" Answer: “She has not an absolute interest in such property.—She has not an uncontrolled interest in that property. She can do nothing of her own authority.” (See Cons. H. L. p. 13). Q. “Has a widow, so succeeding, a right to the possession of the movable property to which she has so succeeded ?” A. “The widow, so succeeding, has a right to the possession of the novable property to which she has succeeded, subject to the control before mentioned.” That relates to the control on the part of the relations of the husband, if she attempt to dispose of the property in a manner the Hindu law will not allow. The fifth question is, “Have the relatives of the husband any right to take such property out of her possession ?” A. “They cannot dispossess her of that property, but they can control her in the use of it.” The sixth question—“Is there any difference in the quantity of interest which a woman takes in property by partition between her sons, and that which she takes by death of her husband without issue 2." The answer is “ There is no difference in the interest so taken. There are different opinions on this subject : some Pandits affirm, that property otained by a woman sharing with her sons, is to be considered as stridhan (separate female property) or her own, over which she has perfect uncontrolled authority ; there are opinions both ways.-We are of opinion, that the most eligible mode would be, to consider it stri’dhan, it being more in the nature of a gift, than what she succeeds to in her own right.” There were four other Pandits afterwards examined, and they concur in the opinions of the Pandits of the Court, except as to the extent of the dominion which the widow has over the whole of the movable and immovable property ; but they concur with respect tò the possession : they do not disagree with the other Pandits on the subject of possession. If therefore that part of the personal property in question, which was in the Supreme Court and which principally occasioned the litigation, instead of being there, had been in the hands of the widow, tñe appellants, as it seems, according to the Hindu Laws S CC S AAA S AAAAA AAAAS A SAS SSAS SSAS SSAS