VYA WASTHA-DARPANA, 762 pensably necessary, a husband can take his wife's Stridhan even though it be of the absolute nature, and he is not liable to make good that property to her : he cannot, however, take it in any other case. However, if the husband has no means of subsistence, without using his wife's separate pro perty, in a famine or other distress, he may take it in such circumstances, but not in any other case. Coleb. Daí, bha', pp. 76, 77. So Jányarakya declares: “A husband is not liable to make good the property of his wife, 3. taken by him in a famine, or for the performance of a duty, or during illness, or while under re straint*(m). (m) ‘Ishile under restrons,'—which a creditor or other person imposes on him for the purpose of recovering his right, being debarred at the same time from ablution, from food, &c.— W. Da. Kra. Sang. p. 42. 436 Kātyāyana has declared the husband (and the rest) to have no right to the use of the woman's separate property as before described, during the non-existence of any such calaniity as a fainine or the like:– “Neither the husband, nor the son, nor the father, nor the brothers, can assume the power over a woman's property to take | or 1.0 bestow it. If any one of these persons by force consume the woman's property, he shall be compelled to make it good with interest (y), and shall also incur a fine. If such person, having obtained her consent, use the property amicably, he shall be required to pay merely the principal (r) when he bocones rich. But if the husband have a second wife, and do not show honor to his first wife, he shall be coinpelled by force to restore her property, though amicably lent to him(s). If food, raiment (s), and dwelling (a) be withheld from the woman, she may exact her (h), and take a share (of the estate) with the co-heirs(i)+. (y) ‘Make it good with interest,’—that is, the woman's separate property taken by force must,
- The last hemistich of this verse is not the same in the Diya Krama Sangraha and Dāyatattwa as in the Dáyabhāga, wherein it is “na strioi ditumarhati.” (he is not liable to make good to the woman,) whereas the reading inserted in the two former books is “nákámo difumarhati.” (he is not liable to Inake good unless willing.) this latter reading is considered to be more proper and reasonable.
- Coleb. Daí, bha”, pp. 76, 77. W. Daí, Kra. Sang. pp, 42,43, Coleb. Dig, vol. III. pp. 573,574 & 581.
Authority. Vyavastha”
