Chapter XII: Part 12

But far more important for practical purposes than these sacred books are the commentaries. These are not sacred. The most important of them all is that known as the Mitacshara. The author of it was named Vijnaneswara. His work is a commentary on the Smriti of Yajnavalkya, and it is supposed to have been written in the latter half of the 11th century. Only a portion of it is used by the law courts--that portion which relates to the partition of family property. The Mitacshara is an important authority for Hindus all over India, and in the greater part its authority is supreme. But there is one very important exception. In the district which is sometimes called Bengal Proper (from its correspondence with the ancient kingdom of Bengal, of which Gaur was the capital), and may be roughly described as the valley of the Ganges below Bhagalpur, the prevailing authority is a treatise called the Dayabhaga. It is, like the Mitacshara, as its name imports, a treatise on partition. The author of it was Jimutavahana. There does not appear to be any more distinct clue to its date than that this author wrote after the 12th century and before the 16th. The very important points of difference between the two commentaries will be stated hereafter. In western India there is a commentary of authority called the Vyavahara Mayukha. It belongs to the 16th century. Generally its authority is secondary to that of the Mitacshara, but in Gujrat its authority is to some extent preferred. In the south of India the Smriti Chandrika is a work of importance. It belongs to the 13th century. It generally follows the Mitacshara, but is fuller on some points. The Vivada Chintamani is used in the small district of Mithila. It is said to belong to the 15th century.

The joint family.

The joint family is by far the most important institution of Hindu society, and it is only through the joint family that we can form a proper conception of the Hindu law. It is the form in which the patriarchal system has survived in India. There is nowhere in Hindu literature, ancient or modern, a description of it as it has existed at any time. In its general features it has always been too universal and too well known to be described. In the Laws of Manu we find very little about it, but what we do find is of great interest. The subject is taken up with reference to a question which in every patriarchal system imperatively requires an answer. What is to be done when a break-up of the family is threatened by the death of the common ancestor? Upon this subject the author of the Laws of Manu says in chap. ix. v. 104: "After the death of the father and the mother, the brothers being assembled, may divide among themselves in equal shares the paternal estate, for they have no power over it while the parents live." Then in v. 105, "or the eldest son alone may take the whole paternal estate; the others shall live under him just as they lived under the father." And in v. III, "Either let them thus live together, or apart if each desires to gain spiritual merit, for by their living separate merit increases, hence separation is meritorious."

We may put aside what is said about the mother which is probably a survival of polyandry, and is now obsolete, and fix our attention upon three important points: (1) Authority is attributed to the father during his life; (2) the same absolute authority is attributed to the eldest son upon the father's death, if the family remains undivided; (3) the sons are at liberty, are indeed recommended, to divide the property. Now, though there may be doubts as to how far this type of family was at any time the universal one, there cannot be any doubt that in those early times it largely prevailed, and that the modern Hindu joint family is directly derived from it. Moreover, it must be remembered that what is here discussed is not ownership, but managership. If the family remained undivided, the eldest son did not take the family property as owner; he only became the uncontrolled manager of it. So far as there was any notion of ownership of the family property, and it was in those early times quite rudimentary, it was in the nature of what we call corporate ownership. The property belonged not to the individual members of the family collectively, but to the family as a whole; to use a modern illustration, not to the members of a family as partnership property belongs to partners, but as collegiate property belongs to fellows of a college. Probably, however, in early times it never occurred to any one to look very closely into the nature of ownership, for until the question of alienation arises the difference between managership and ownership is not of very great importance; and this question did not arise until much later. When and under what circumstances Hindus first began to consider more carefully the nature of ownership we have no means of ascertaining. But we have very clear evidence that there was at one time a very warm controversy on the subject. Each of the two leading commentaries on Hindu law, the Mitacshara and the Dayabhaga, opens with a very long discussion as to when and how a son becomes entitled to be called an owner of the family property. Two conflicting theories are propounded. One is that the sons are joined with the father in the ownership in his lifetime; the other is that they only become owners when he dies, or relinquishes worldly affairs, which, according to Hindu ideas, like taking monastic vows, produces civil death. The author of the Mitacshara adopts the first of these views; the author of the Dayabhaga adopts the second; and this radical difference led to the great schism in the Hindu law. It follows that, according to the Dayabhaga view, the sons not being owners, the father is sole owner. He is both sole owner and uncontrolled manager. According to the Mitacshara view the father and the sons together are the owners, not as individuals, but as a corporation. But even this is not inconsistent with the father retaining his absolute control as manager. How far he has done so will be considered presently.

Hitherto, for the sake of simplicity, the position of father and son has alone been considered; but now take the case of several brothers living together with sons and grandsons. What is the nature of the ownership in this case, and in whom is it vested? Neither in the Dayabhaga nor in the Mitacshara is this question discussed directly, but each of these commentaries discloses the answer which its author would give to this question. According to the Mitacshara, of however many different branches, and of however many different members, a family may consist, they all form a single unity or corporation to which the family property belongs. Not that this is asserted in so many words; there is probably no Sanskrit word corresponding at all nearly to our word corporation. But this is the only language in which a modern lawyer can describe the situation. The members of the family are not partners; no one can separately dispose of anything, not even an undivided share. It is quite otherwise under the Dayabhaga. The property belongs to the members of the family, not as a corporation, but as joint owners or partners. Each is the owner of his undivided share; but not all the members of the Dayabhaga family have a share in the ownership; the sons whose fathers are alive are entirely excluded: the owners are those members of the family of any age who have no direct living ancestor.

This was the nature of family ownership in its two principal forms, but the possibility that an individual member of the family could have something exclusively his own is clearly recognized in the Laws of Manu. Thus in chap. ix. v. 206, it is said, "Property acquired by learning belongs solely to him to whom it was given, likewise the gift of a friend, a present received in marriage, or with the honey mixture." And again in v. 208, "What the brother may acquire by his labour without using the patrimony, that acquisition made solely by his own effort he shall not share, unless by his own will, with his brothers"; and these texts, as we shall see presently, are still of practical application. Nowhere has a strict family system prevailed without some analogous measure of relief (see Sir H. Maine, _Early History of Institutions_, p. 110).

The modern Hindu joint family is a community the members of which are all descended from a common ancestor, and the wives and unmarried daughters of those who are married. Perhaps the wives and daughters might more correctly be said to belong to the family than to be members of it. In its complete form the family is said to be joint in food, worship and estate; and notwithstanding the divergence between the Mitacshara and Dayabhaga systems, the main external features of such a family are the same all over India. Every Hindu family has a common home. This does not mean that there is a single house in which all the members of the family continuously reside, but there is one house where the family gods remain, where the wants of all the members of the family are provided for, where the family worship is conducted, and to which every member of the family is at any time at liberty to resort. This is the real home of a Hindu. Any other residence, however long it may last, is looked upon as temporary. Here also the wives and children remain whilst the men are employed at a distance. With regard to the enjoyment of the family property there is no distinction, except such as the members of the family themselves choose to make. Everything is enjoyable in common. This is the same all over India. It is very necessary to distinguish between ownership and enjoyment. Although the ownership of the family property under the Mitacshara differs very materially (as explained above) from that under the Dayabhaga, the enjoyment in both cases is the same. There is one common fund out of which the wants of the family are supplied. No one is dependent upon his own contribution to the family fund. No one member can say to another, "You have consumed more than your share, and you must make it good." On the other hand, whatever is earned goes into the common stock. Though separate acquisition is possible, it is exceptional, and there is always a presumption that the earnings of all the members belong to the common fund, so that if any member claims property as self-acquired he must establish his assertion by evidence as to how he acquired it, and that he did so "without using the patrimony." The accounts of the family are kept by the manager, who is usually the eldest male, and he also generally manages the property. But he is assisted and controlled by the other members of the family. No separate account is kept of what each member contributes or receives. The expenditure on behalf of the various members of the family is scarcely ever equal, but this inequality creates no debt between the members of the family. If any one Is dissatisfied he can protest, and if his protest is not listened to, there is only one remedy--he can demand a partition. The powers of the manager are those of an agent: it is very rare to find them formally expressed, and they must be gathered from the usual course of dealing, either amongst Hindus generally, or in the particular family to which the manager belongs; and it is the custom for all the adult male members of the family to be consulted in matters of serious importance. The alienation of land is always looked upon as a matter of special importance, and, except in cases of urgent necessity, requires the express assent of all the members of the family.

Partition.

If any member of a Hindu family who is one of the co-owners wishes for a partition, he can demand one, there never having been any compulsion on the members of a Hindu family to live in common. Of course in a Dayabhaga family there can only be a partition as between brothers, or the descendants of brothers; between a father and his sons there can be no partition, the sons not being owners. The father may, if he chooses to do so, distribute the property amongst his sons, and he sometimes does so; but this is a distribution of his own property, and not a partition. The father can distribute the property as he pleases. But the absolute power of the father in this respect has only been recently established. It used to be thought that, if the father made a distribution, he must give to each of his sons an equal share. It is now settled that the father is absolute. Under the Mitacshara, the ownership being vested in the father and sons, there can be a partition between father and sons, and the sons can always insist that, if a partition is made, their rights shall be respected. Whether, under the Mitacshara law, the sons have the right to demand a partition in opposition to their father has been much disputed. It is now generally considered that the sons have such a right.

In modern times if a partition takes place everything belonging to the family in common must be divided, even the idols. If there is only one idol, then each member of the family will be entitled to a "turn of worship," as it is called. It is, however, open to the members of the family to make any special arrangements either for retaining any portion of the property as joint, or as to the mode of carrying out of the partition, provided they can all agree to it. It is remarkable that in the Laws of Manu no such complete partition as can now be required is prescribed. A list of articles is given of considerable importance of which no partition could be claimed. In chap. ix. v. 219, it is said, "A dress, a vehicle, ornaments, cooked food, water and female slaves, property destined for pious uses and sacrifices, and a pasture ground" are all declared to be indivisible. Land and the right of way to the family house were also at one time indivisible. These things, therefore, must have been used in common after partition had taken place, which looks as if the family were not entirely broken up; and it is possible that they inhabited several houses within the same enclosure, as is sometimes seen at the present day. It is not always easy to subdivide property amongst the sharers, especially where they are numerous; and cases occur where a better division could be made by selling the whole or a portion of the property, and dividing the proceeds. This could always be done with the consent of all the sharers; and now by Act IV. of 1893 of the governor-general in council it can be done with the consent of a moiety in value of the sharers.

Rulers in India are apt to look upon their territories as private property, but there is no instance on record of the succession to the throne being considered as partible. On the contrary, in the families which now represent the small mediatized princes, the family property is frequently, by a special custom, considered to be impartible. The property descends to the eldest male, the younger members of the family getting allowances, generally in the form of temporary assignments of portions of the family property.

Of course only the family property can be divided, and if any of the members make a claim on the ground of self-acquisition to exclude anything from partition, this claim must be considered; and if it is upheld, that portion of the property must be excluded from partition. These claims sometimes give rise to a good deal of litigation, and are not always easy to determine. It must be borne in mind, however, that self-acquired property becomes family property as soon as it has once descended. Thus if a man by a separate trade earns Rs.10,000, and dies leaving two sons and the son of a third son, these persons form a joint family, and the Rs.10,000 is family property. So also family property which has been partitioned remains family property still. Thus if A, a bachelor, gets on partition a piece of land and afterwards marries and has sons, under the Mitacshara law the father and sons form a joint family as soon as the sons are born, and to this family the land belongs.

Inheritance.

When we come to deal with the question of what shares are taken on partition, it is convenient to follow the example of the Hindu commentators, and to treat the subject of inheritance in conjunction with it. The relative importance of these two subjects has not always been perceived, particularly by the early English writers on Hindu law. H. T. Colebrooke, the learned and accomplished translator of the Mitacshara and the Dayabhaga, published the two treatises together in one volume which he called _The Law of Inheritance_. But these treatises, although they deal incidentally with inheritance, are both described by their authors as treatises on partition only; and this, no doubt, is because the subject of inheritance, apart from partition, is of comparatively small importance. Inheritance is the transfer of ownership which occurs at and in consequence of a death. It follows from this that in a Mitacshara joint family there is no inheritance. The death of a member of the family makes no change in the ownership; not any more than the death, of a fellow in the ownership of a college, or of a shareholder in the ownership of a railway company. In a Dayabhaga family there is a case of inheritance whenever a member dies. The share of that member descends to his heir. But here, again, no perceptible change in the affairs of the family is occasioned thereby. The enjoyment of the family property is no more affected thereby than by a death in a Mitacshara family. It is only when a partition takes place that the devolution of the shares by inheritance has to be traced. Inheritance, therefore, apart from partition, has not to be considered when we are dealing with family property under either system.

Let us now consider partition in a Mitacshara family. Of course the only persons who can claim a share are the members of the family. These, as has been said, are the male descendants of a common ancestor through males, their wives and daughters. But the females are entirely excluded from any share on a partition, and we have to consider the males only. The rule for ascertaining the share to which each member of the family is entitled can be best explained by the following diagram, which represents the male members of a Mitacshara family of whom A is the common ancestor:--

A
+--------------------+----------+---------+
| | | |
B C D E
| | | |
+------+----+ +-----+ | |
F G H I K L M
| | | | | |
+-----+ +--+ | | | +-----+
N O P Q R S T U W
| |
+---+ |
X Y Z

The whole family may be considered as forming one group, which may conveniently be called the group A; and it is evident on inspection that the family may be subdivided into a number of smaller groups each similarly organized, each group consisting of a man and his own male descendants. Thus besides the group A we have the group B, consisting of B and his descendants; the group C, consisting of C and his descendants; and so on. A group may die out altogether, as if U and W were to die childless, E and M being already dead. The rule of partition proceeds upon the supposition--not an unnatural one--that a family, when it breaks up, separates always into groups, and that the shares are moulded accordingly. For example, suppose that when the partition is made the surviving members of the family are N, O, S, T, X, Y, Z; then to find the shares we must go back to the common ancestor and reconstruct the pedigree. There were at first four groups, but at some time, it is immaterial when, by the death of E and all his descendants the groups have been reduced to three; hence the first step is to divide the property into three equal parts, assigning one to each group. The group B was originally represented by three smaller groups, but now by only two, the groups F and G, and to each of these we assign ½ of 1/3, or 1/6. And, of the 1/6 assigned to the group F, N will get 1/12 and O will get 1/12. The other 1/6 is divided between the groups P and Q, each group getting 1/12. Then in the group P, X and Y will each get 1/24, while Z, as the sole representative of the group Q, will get 1/12. It may be noted in passing that this principle of division survives in the succession _per stirpes_, of which we find so many examples in other systems of law which had their origin in the patriarchal system. By a similar process we should find that S and T each got 1/3 of the property, they being the sole representatives of the groups C and D respectively. For the sake of simplicity we have taken a case where no example occurs of a father and son being both alive at the time of partition. But suppose P to be alive in addition to the persons mentioned above; then the group P gets 1/12, and that group consists of three persons, P, X and Y. There is no precise rule as to how the partition was to be made in such a case in the older Hindu law, and it is rarely that a partition takes place between father and sons, but if there should be one it is always assumed that the shares are equal, i.e. in the case under consideration each would take 1/36.

Turning now to a Dayabhaga family, we find that the property is vested, not in the family as a whole, but in certain individual members of it--that is to say, in those male members of the family who have no ancestor alive. And inasmuch as the undivided share of each member is his own, it follows that at his death inheritance will operate and it goes to his heirs. In order, therefore, to find what share each member takes on partition under the Dayabhaga, we must inquire into the history of the family and ascertain what share has become vested in each member of the family by the ordinary rules of inheritance. The rules of inheritance, as laid down in the Dayabhaga, are not very dissimilar to those which we find in other parts of the world. Everywhere we find that a man's property is taken by his nearest relatives, but there are differences in the way in which proximity is reckoned. Everywhere also there is a preference given to males and the relatives through males over females and the relatives through females, but there are differences in the extent to which this preference is carried. The relatives of a man through males are called his agnates; the relatives of a man through females are called his cognates. In the Hindu law as at present administered there is no primogeniture, and a decided preference of males over females and of agnates over cognates. With regard to the question of proximity, the Dayabhaga lawyers deal with the matter in a very curious way. All Hindus, as is well known, offer some sort of sacrifice to their deceased relatives, and the person by whom the sacrifice is to be offered as well as the nature of the offering are very carefully prescribed. These sacrifices are said to confer a "spiritual benefit" upon the deceased, and this spiritual benefit is greater or less according to the nature of the offering and the person who offers it. Now the Dayabhaga lawyers say that the person whose offering confers the greatest spiritual benefit is entitled to succeed as heir. This being the theory, we must see what rules govern in India the offering of sacrifices to the dead.

The most important offering is that of the pinda, or rice cake, and the persons who are entitled to make this offering to the deceased are called his sapindas. The offering next in importance is that of the lepa, or fragments of the cake, the crumbs as we might call them, and the persons who make this offering are called sakulyas. The offering of least importance is the simple libation of water, and persons connected by this offering are called samonadacas. But who are sapindas, sakulyas and samonadacas respectively, and of each class whose offering is most efficacious? Practically we shall find that this question is solved by rules of consanguinity not unlike those which we meet with elsewhere. First of all come the sons; their offering is most efficacious, so that they are the nearest heirs and all take equally. Then come the sons' sons; then the sons' sons' sons. Here we break off. The line of inheritance is not continued beyond the great-grandsons. There are other cases in which, as we shall see, there is a similar break when we get three degrees away from the propositus: nor is this peculiarity confined to the Hindu law. We find traces of a similar break in the Roman and in the Teutonic law. After the great-grandson comes the widow. It is difficult to establish her claim on the ground of spiritual benefit, and it rests upon authority rather than principle. The opinions of ancient writers on the subject are very conflicting. They are set forth at great length in the Dayabhaga, with a conclusion in favour of the widow. Probably the intrusion of the widow is connected with the fact that she could in early times by cohabitation with a brother, and in later times by adoption, procure an heir to her sonless husband. Next to the widow come the daughters and then the daughters' sons. Their position, again, may be referred to the notion which prevailed in early times, that a Hindu who had no son of his own might take one of his daughters' sons and make him his own. Then comes the father, then the mother, then the brothers, then the brothers' sons, and then the brothers' sons' sons. The sisters are excluded, but their sons succeed after the brothers' sons' sons; then come the brothers' daughters' sons. Then, leaving this generation, we go a step backward, and proceed to exhaust the previous generation in precisely the same way. It is only necessary to enumerate these in their order: father's father, father's mother, father's brothers, father's brothers' sons, father's brothers' sons' sons, father's sisters' sons, father's brothers' daughters' sons. Then going another step backwards we get father's father's father, father's father's mother, father's father's brothers, father's father's brothers' sons, father's father's sisters' sons, father's father's brothers' daughters' sons.

So far the line of succession is confined either strictly to male agnates, or to persons who may restore the broken line of male agnate relationship. But at this point, under the Dayabhaga, instead of exhausting the male agnates still further, as we might expect, we turn now to the cognates, i.e. the relatives of the deceased through the mother. It is said that these are also in some way sapindas. They are generally called bandhus. There is some difficulty in finding out the order in which they succeed, and since it is rare that an heir has to be sought outside the father's family, the question has not been much discussed. The question would have to be decided by the religious doctrine of spiritual benefit, and it is not improbable that Hindus who are accustomed to keep up sacrifices which confer the benefit would be able to say whose sacrifice was most efficacious. When all the sapindas both on the father's and mother's side are exhausted, we then go to the sakulyas, and practically these are found by continuing the enumeration of agnates upon the same principle as that already indicated through three generations lower and three generations higher. On failure of the sakulyas we should have to fall back upon the samonadacas, but probably all that can be said with certainty is that the sakulyas and samonadacas between them exhaust entirely the male agnates of the deceased. Where there are several persons whose offerings are equally efficacious, i.e. who stand in the same relationship to the deceased, they all take: the male descendants _per stirpes_, and the other relatives of the deceased _per capita_.

These, then, are the rules which govern the ascertainment of the shares of the members of a family on a partition. Neither in a Mitacshara family nor in a Dayabhaga family have they any effect so long as the family remains joint: it is partition, and partition only, which brings them into play, and it is to this event rather than death that Hindu lawyers attach the greatest importance. Nevertheless all property in India is not joint property. Under the Mitacshara as well as under the Dayabhaga separate property may be acquired, and then, of course, we have true inheritance, for which the law must provide. So far as regards the Dayabhaga, the rules which govern the inheritance of separate property are (as we should expect) precisely the same as those which govern the inheritance of a share, and it is therefore unnecessary to restate them. But it remains to lay down the rules of inheritance for separate property under the Mitacshara law. They are not based by Mitacshara writers upon any religious principle, as under the Dayabhaga, yet the result is not widely different. First come the sons, then the sons' sons, and then the sons' sons' sons. Then the widow, whose right has been disputed, but was long ago established; then the daughters, and then the daughters' sons. After these come the parents, and it is peculiar that of these the mother comes before the father, then the father's sons and then the father's sons' sons. Then we go back to the preceding generation, and follow the same order--the father's mother, the father's father, the father's father's sons, the father's father's sons' sons. After this we go back another generation, and again follow the same order--father's father's mother, father's father's father, father's father's brother, father's father's brother's son. From this point the statements of Hindu lawyers as to the order of succession are very scanty and vague. One thing is certain, that under the Mitacshara law no cognates (relations through females) are admitted until all the agnates (relations through males) are exhausted.

Wills.

So far we have considered intestate succession only, and the power of testamentary disposition is unknown to the true Hindu law. It was introduced by the decisions of the British courts of justice. By a will is meant a declaration by a man of his wishes as to the disposition of his property after his death, taking no effect during his life. A will is therefore by its very nature revocable. The general question whether a Hindu could dispose of his property by will arose in Bengal when Hindus began to attempt to dispose of their property after their death according to the English method. At that time there was a doubt whether the father was so completely absolute that he could dispose of his property to the exclusion of his sons, even in his lifetime. As soon as it was settled that he could do so, it was assumed that he could also make a will. It seems never to have been asked why it was that up to this time no Hindu had ever made a will, or to question the radically false assumption that the power of alienation _inter vivos_ and the power of testamentary alienation necessarily go together. A long series of decisions confirmed by the legislature has, however, established that a Hindu in modern times can dispose of any property of which he is the sole owner. In other words, a Hindu can dispose by will of his self-acquired property, and under the Dayabhaga a Hindu can dispose by will of his share in family property. But the courts which created the testamentary power have also limited it to disposition in favour of persons living at the time of the testator's decease, thus avoiding many of the fanciful dispositions of property to which testators in all countries are so prone. But, curiously enough, this restriction, salutary as it is, has also been based on the notion that a testamentary disposition is a gift from the testator to the object of his bounty.

Debts.

In almost all countries at an early stage of civilization some legal provision exists by which debtors can be compelled by their creditors to pay their debts, and by which, if they fail to do so, their property can be seized and applied to this purpose. But the extent to which this can be done varies very considerably. So long as the family system exists in its primitive vigour it acts as a protection to the family property against the extravagance of a single member, and we often find that even when the family system has almost, or completely disappeared, there is an unwillingness to deprive the future representatives of the family of their land and houses. Doubts, too, have arisen as to whether the same right which a creditor has against his living debtor can be exercised after the debtor's death against those who have succeeded to his property. In India these two considerations have been deeply affected by a principle enunciated by Hindu lawyers (traces of which we find in many Eastern countries), that a man who dies in debt suffers cruel tortures in a future state, and that it is the imperative duty of his own immediate dependants to deliver him from these tortures by discharging his liabilities. Whether this should be looked upon as a legal, or only as a purely religious duty, might be questionable: the courts have seized upon it as a basis for laying down in the broadest manner the just rule that those who take the benefit of succession must take the burdens also. The subject is one which has caused a great deal of litigation in India, and whilst some points have been clearly settled, others are still being slowly worked out. As the matter stands at present, it may be safely said that all separate property is liable for the debts of the owner, both in his lifetime and after his death in the hands of his heirs. The same may be said of the share in the family property of the member of a Dayabhaga family, of which share he is the owner. So also the family property under both the Dayabhaga and Mitacshara is liable as a whole for the debts incurred on behalf of the family as a whole. As regards the question of the liability of the family property for the separate debts of the members of a Mitacshara family, the courts have held that the sons must pay their father's debts. Of course illegality would be an answer to the claims of the creditors against the heirs, just as it would be an answer to the claim against the original debtor; but there is some authority for saying that a debt contracted for an immoral though not an illegal purpose would not be enforced against the heir. According to modern decisions also, if judgment and execution on a separate debt are obtained against the member of a Mitacshara family, the share which would fall to him upon a partition may by process of law be set apart and sold for the benefit of the creditor.

Maintenance.

The doctrine of what is called maintenance plays an important part in the Hindu law, and, as we shall see, it modifies considerably the rigour of the Hindu law in excluding from the succession females or persons suffering from mental or bodily infirmity. The right of maintenance under the Hindu law is the right which certain persons have to be maintained out of property which is not their own. The persons who in certain circumstances have this right are sons, widows, parents and unmarried daughters and sisters. The claim of the widow arises at the death of her husband; of a child at the death of its parent, and so forth. The claim is not for a bare subsistence only, but to such a provision as is suitable to the claimant having regard to his or her position in life. Of course the sons are generally heirs, and an heir can have no claim to maintenance; but a son excluded by any mental or bodily defect would have a right to maintenance. The girls are generally married in infancy, and after marriage they have no claim to maintenance from their own family. The most frequent claim is by the widow; and it is a very important one, because she can sometimes, through the assertion of this claim, put herself almost in the position of an heir. If a Hindu under the Dayabhaga dies leaving sons and a widow, the widow is entitled to maintenance, and whilst the family remains joint she can claim to be suitably maintained, in the family if she remains in her husband's house, or out of it if she goes elsewhere. But if a partition takes place she is entitled to have a share equal to that of the sons set aside for her use. She can even, if she thinks that the sons do not treat her properly, apply to the court to compel the sons to give her a separate share. This, of course, gives her a very strong position. Whether in a Mitacshara joint family the widow enjoying maintenance can in any case claim a share on partition is doubtful.

Women's property.

In some respects, and as regards some kinds of property, the ownership of women under the Hindu law differs from that of men. These differences depend on the source from which the property is derived. If a woman has inherited property from a male, or as a gift by her husband, or has obtained it as a share on partition, she does not own it in the same way as a man would do; she obtains only a kind of restricted ownership. She has the full enjoyment and management of it, but she cannot sell it, or give it away, or dispose of it by will; and at her death it goes not to her heirs but to the heirs of the person from whom she obtained it; her ownership simply comes to an end. If she obtained it by inheritance from a male, it will go on her death to the heirs of that male; if as a share on partition it will be divided amongst the other sharers; if as a gift from her husband, to the heirs of the husband. As regards property otherwise obtained she is in the same position as any other owner, but the rules of inheritance applicable to it are somewhat peculiar. It would be a mistake to look upon the restricted ownership of a woman as what the English lawyers call a life estate. There is no such thing as a remainder or reversion. The whole estate is vested in her. If we endeavoured to describe the position of affairs at her death in the technical language of the English law of real property, it would be more correct to say that there was a shifting use. The restriction of alienation is sometimes removed where there is a danger that the property might otherwise be lost, as for example when the property is likely to be sold for non-payment of government revenue, in which case a portion may, if necessary, be sold by the woman so as to save the remainder. So also a woman who has no other means of maintaining herself, or of providing for the performance of religious duties which are incumbent upon her, may sell so much of the property as will produce the necessary funds. It would be difficult for a purchaser to know whether he would be safe in purchasing from a widow selling under necessity, and more difficult still to preserve evidence of the necessity in case the necessity were disputed. Of course the woman herself could not dispute the validity of the sales, but those who take after her might do so. Consequently it is not unusual to obtain the concurrence of the person who at the time of the purchase is entitled to succeed if the widow were dead, and it has been held that if this person concurs in the sale, no one else can dispute it on the ground that it was unnecessary.

Husband and wife.

The subject of marriage is dealt with at considerable length in the Laws of Manu, and it is clear that, as originally conceived, marriage under the Hindu law consisted in nothing more than the mere possession of the woman, however obtained, by the man with the intention of making her his wife. Eight kinds of marriage are enumerated, and to each kind is assigned a separate name. The first four kinds are merely different forms of gift of the girl by her father to the husband. The other four kinds are--obtaining possession of a girl by purchase, fraud, ravishment or consent of the girl herself. But the simple gift of the girl by her father without any bargain or recompense was even then considered the most reputable form of marriage, and it is now the only one in common use amongst orthodox Hindus. The sale of the daughter was even in those early times stigmatized as disgraceful, but it was valid; and even now, if there were an actual transfer of the girl by the father, it is scarcely probable that the courts would inquire whether any inducement was given for the transfer. The transaction takes place entirely between the father of the girl and the future husband; the girl has nothing to do but to obey. If the girl has no father, then it will be the duty of her nearest male relatives to dispose of her in marriage. If, however, the girl is not married when she attains puberty (which is very rare), then she may choose a husband for herself. The father cannot dispose of his son in marriage as he can of his daughter, nor is anything said about his consent in the matter; though in the case of a very young boy there can be no doubt that the consent of one or both parents is obtained. The marriage of very young boys is very common, and is certainly valid.

The ceremonies which precede and accompany a marriage are very numerous. By far the most important is that which consists in the bridegroom taking the bride's hand and walking seven steps. Amongst Hindus generally the performance of this ceremony following upon a betrothal would be treated as conclusive evidence of a marriage, whilst the omission of it would, amongst orthodox Hindus, be almost conclusive that no marriage had yet taken place. But still any particular customs of the tribe or caste to which the parties belonged would always be considered, and it cannot be said that the completion or non-completion of this ceremony is universally conclusive as to the existence of a marriage. There may be communities of Hindus which require something more than this; there are certainly some which require something less, and others which require something altogether different. There are lower castes in some parts of India calling themselves Hindus in which the only ceremony accompanying a marriage is giving a feast to which the members of the two families are invited.

The marriage of Hindus is complete without consummation; and as girls are almost invariably married before the age of puberty, and sometimes long before, consummation is generally deferred, it may be, for several years. But all this time the parties are husband and wife, and if the husband dies the child becomes a widow. The condition of these child widows in India is certainly not an enviable one, for practically they can never hope to marry again. Whether the second marriage would be lawful was a disputed point in Hindu law until an act of the Indian Legislature (Act XV. of 1860) declared in favour of the opinion that the widow might remarry. But the social prejudice against remarriage is still very strong, and such a marriage rarely takes place. If the widow has inherited any property from her husband, she loses it by contracting a second marriage. There is no legal restraint upon the number of wives that a Hindu may marry, but polygamy is not practised so largely as is sometimes supposed.

Members of the three higher castes are forbidden to marry a woman of the same _gotra_ as themselves. Literally a gotra means a cattle-yard, and the prohibition is considered to exclude marriage between all those who are descended from the same male ancestor through an uninterrupted line of males. This rule is said not to apply to Sudras. But there is another rule which applies to all Hindus, and prohibits the marriage of a man with a girl descended from his paternal or maternal ancestors within the sixth degree. The working out of the rule is a little peculiar, but the result is to give a rather wide rule of exclusion of both agnates and cognates. There is, however, this important exception to these rules of exclusion--that if a fit match cannot otherwise be procured, a man may marry a girl within the fifth degree on the father's side and the third on the mother's. Practically this reduces the limit of exclusion to that last stated, because no one but the parties themselves with whom the choice rested could say whether or no any other suitable wife was available to the husband.

A Hindu must also marry within his caste: a Brahmin must marry a Brahmin, a Rajput must marry a Rajput, and a Sudra must marry a Sudra. Whether there are any other representatives of the four original castes is very doubtful, and even the claim of the Rajputs to represent the military caste is disputed. Still the rule of prohibition is so far clear. But there are innumerable subdivisions of Hindus which are also called castes, and as a matter of fact these minor castes do not intermarry. How far such marriages would be lawful it is difficult to say. The matter is entirely one of custom. The ancient Hindu law furnishes no guide on the subject, because under the ancient law the intermarriages of persons of different castes, even the highest, though they were considered undesirable, were recognized as legal. Modern Hindus seem disposed to deny the validity of marriages between persons of different castes in either sense of the term.

Divorce, in the sense of a rupture of the marriage tie, is not known to the true Hindu law. But unchastity deprives a wife of all her rights except to a bare maintenance, and this without any legal proof. She cannot succeed her husband as his heir, and of course she cannot remarry. A little confusion has been caused by the fact that a Hindu husband sometimes goes through a private ceremony which is erroneously called a divorce. But this is only done in order more effectually to bar an unchaste wife from succeeding to his property. Some very low castes are, however, said to allow a husband to divorce his wife, and even to allow the divorced wife to marry again. The single case in which a Hindu marriage can be dissolved by a court of law is by a proceeding under Act XXI. of 1860, which was passed to meet the difficulties which arise when one of the parties to a Hindu marriage becomes a Christian. In this case, if the convert after deliberation during a prescribed time refuses to cohabit any longer with the other party, the court may declare the marriage tie to be dissolved, and a woman whose marriage has been thus dissolved is declared capable of marrying again.

Suttee.

An interesting chapter in the history of the modern development of Hindu law is that of the practice of what we call Suttee, though, properly speaking, the native term (_Sati_) denotes, not a practice, but a person, i.e. a faithful wife. The practice in question is that of the widow burning herself with her husband when his body is burned after his death. This, according to Hindu ideas, is a laudable act of devotion on the part of the widow, and when Great Britain first began to administer the law in India it was not uncommon. The newcomers had not as yet taken upon themselves the responsibility of altering the law, but of course British officers did what they could to discourage the practice, and especially to prevent any pressure being put upon the widow to perform the sacrifice. They could also take advantage of any circumstance which would render the case an improper one for the performance of the sacrifice, as, for example, that compulsion had been put upon the widow, or that the burning did not take place with the body of the husband. But if the proceedings were according to Hindu notions regular, it was contrary to the principles on which the governor-general then acted to interfere, and British officers had frequently to stand by, and, by not interfering, to give a sort of sanction to the sacrifice. When later the servants of the East India company began to assume a more direct responsibility for the government of the country, many suggestions were made for legislative interference. But, acting on the salutary principle that it was unwise to interfere in any way with the religion of the people, the government abstained from doing so. In the meantime a considerable body of opinion against the practice had grown up amongst Hindus themselves, and at length the government thought it safe to interfere. By Regulation XVII. of 1829 widow-burning was declared to be a criminal offence. The measure produced no serious opposition. There was hardly a single prosecution under this Regulation; and from this time the practice of widow-burning has entirely disappeared from that part of India which is under British rule.

Father and son.