পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/২৩৩

উইকিসংকলন থেকে
এই পাতাটির মুদ্রণ সংশোধন করা প্রয়োজন।

VYA WASTHA1.DARPANA 107 42. To these and to the rest, let her give presents, and not to the family of Vyavastha’ her own father, while such persons are forthcoming f : for the specific mention of paternal uncles and the rest would be superfluous.* 43. With their consent, however, she may bestow gifts on the kindred of Vyavasthā her own father and mother.” Thus NA’ttapa says: “When the husband is deceased, his kin are the guardians of his child- *". less widow. In the disposal (k) and preservation of property, as well as in her maintenance, they are her 1’shtrara, lord. But if the husband's family be extilict, or contain no male, or be helpless, the kin of the widow’s father are her guardians, if there be mo relations of her husband within the degree of a sapinda.” 13,28, 29. practice, sounded on the rank established by the mighty prince BAL.A.T.A SENA, has been adopted by great personages. Though not found on cod's of law, it is moticed (in this place) to explain the (sulsisting) practice. It should be examine i by the auspicious (learned). lience, either these women must be comprehended under the term “females of the faulily,” or else the usage of contracting numerous marriages muust le discontinued. Coleb. Dig. Vol. i II. pp. 100, 46 1 .

  • Coleb. Dá bhá. Ch. XI. Sect. 1. paras. 63 & 61. W. Bá. Sang, p. 6. toleb. Dig. Vol. III. pp. 458 – 461. Elb. I n. lpp. 7:3. –75.

j I'ront the above, it seems to be the opinion of J 1 M to TAvATI a NA and others that the widow could not, without the consent of those imentioned in the above text of V it i 11 As PATI, nrake a gift to any of her father's family or to any other person, though it were but in due proportion to the entire cstate, and for the husband's spiritual benefit. But unodern lawyers have considered a gift mille loy the widow of a simall portion of her husband's estate. for the benefit of his soul, to any (meritorious) person. though it be without, er, sent of her husband's fluily. viili.l. on 1 lie ground that none of the so:es or contpilers has declared such gifts to come within the scope and intout of the term “waste ’’ or “unlawful.” The judges also, in consoriality with the ryttrits/hots of those lawyers, have uphell gifts of the class above (lescrioctl. The persons specified by Viti 11 As Parı an i J 1 M t; or Av A^n ANA must, however, be held to be such as are preferable objects of gist for the spiritual benefit of the lusbanol, inasmuch as gifts made to such are productive of increased bemelit, f There are two readings of the first part of the second heinistich of the above rachana : I. * I'uniyoyertha rakshytisu' in the disposal anal preservation of property, and I 1. - ITniyaya tmu rith'shy tisu ' in the disposill (of property) and care of herself. Colebrooke. at p;ig. 3S 1, cliapter I., 13ook 1 V. of Iiis Digest, has, in the translation of the above rotchantt. adopted the second reading. and added in a note subjoined : “ the preservation of wealth : avarious realing, in Book V., Chap. V. l l I.” But in the plice referred to, he says nothing about the various readings. I le only gives there the translation of JAt: A N N A ru's comment on some words of the rachtna, referring for its translation to IBook IV., ( 'hop. 1, and onlitting (why, does not appear) a translation of Ji MU*AvA in ANA's opinion as to the meaning of the rachana, which opinion is quoted in Pivdidabhangarnara. The same learned writer, in his translation of the I)aiyabhága, has adhered to tho seeondl reading ; and Mr. Wynclı, in his translation of the Dáyak, amasangraha, has simply quoted Colebrooke's translation, though, singularly enough, in his edition of the Sanscrit version, Mr. Wyueh has adopted the first realing. I alopt the first reading, not only beeause