পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/৪৬১

উইকিসংকলন থেকে
এই পাতাটির মুদ্রণ সংশোধন করা প্রয়োজন।

WYAVASTHA-DARPANA $39 dant state. This view is, however, dissented from by Mr. Welly Jackson, with much force of argument and expression. Undoubtedly such was the ancient status, and to a limited extent it is true still. But the status of the Hindu female has improved, and is improving. The Hindu law governs suits between Hindus in the Supreme Court in three cases only, contract, sucecssion, and inheritance. In other cases the English law is as to them also the law of the Court; the only modification is this that the family usages and rights of Hindu fathers and heads of families are to be observed. The Court is bound and always willing to give due effect to those rights. The Hindu law says in several texts, “reason and justice are more to be regarded than mere texts, and that wherever a good custom exists it has the force of law'. The manners of one age are not necessarily those of another. A corrupt practice dies away; mankind, as they advance in civilisation and knowledge, learn to be more mild and tolerant, and to respect more the natural rights of others. The feeble are less subject to oppression, the slave grows into a freeman, the rights of women are at least in part acknowledged. “I have always understood,” says Sir Henry Seaton, “that the law of a country was to be found, not in the mere text of its code, which can never be more than the foundation of it, but in the practice which has prevailed under it, which may be often inconsistent with it, and even in some cases opposed to it. We cannot adopt in preference to our own established by several decisions, another rule if it can be said to be the rule of Sudder authorities as established there, which seems to impose something like a penalty on the exercise of a reasonable free-dom, allowed in practice amongst virtuous and intelligent IIindus. We may remark further, that as the Indian Legislature has relieved against forfeitures for even graver offences in the eyes of strict Hindus, it seems inconsistent with the spirit of that law to decree a forfeiture for a minor infraction of the strict letter of the IHindu law, in a case which brings no disgrace, and is unattended with sin or danger. - We think this lady is entitled to part of that which she asks; six Rupees per mensem, which was the sum offered her, was, we think, considering her station and the property, too little : twenty Rupees which she claims would not have been too much had the property been larger. We shall award ten Rupees per month, and the back maintenance must date only from the date of the demand. We might in a proper case say there shall be uo back maintenance, and further maintenance should be enjoined only on the condition of residence with the late husband's fainily; but in this case, we think there is no ground for attaching any such condition to the award of maintenance.” Decreed accordingly. Englishman, 26th July 1854. Kunjamani Dási and Bilás Dási, two of the widows of Rājā Naba Krishna, filed their bill against Gopimohan Deb the adopted son, and Rājā Rāj Krishna the begotten son, of Rûjû Naba Krishna, praying an account and a separate maintenance. To the answer of Rajú Rāj Krishna the will of Raja Naba Krishna was annexed, from which it appeared that he had given to each of his wives, money and jewels suitable to their situation in life—and that he had directed them to be maintained by his son Riji Raj Krishna in the finily house. The defendants stated that the widows (complainants) had left the family house withont any cause, and had gone to reside elsewhere. Rājā Roj Krishna offered to maintain the complainants, if they would return to the family house. The case made by the defendants could not be denied, and the bill was dismissed. The right of the widows however to a suitable maintenance was not disputed. It was indeed, on the contrary, admitted, and it was upon showing that they had, or might have, such a provision as their husband had thought proper, that the bill was dismissed. Con. H. L. p. 62. A claim by a Hindu widow for an allowance from her husband's family, was dismissed on proof of such Case bearing on the vyavasthé No. 1 #1. Саве impropriety of conduct on her part as, in the opinion of the court, deprived her of legal claim, according: bearing on the vyavasthā. to the Hindu law, to a maintenance from them. Râni Basanta Kumāri versus Râni Kamal Kumāri and others. 29th December 1843. S. D. A. Rep. Vol. VII. p. 144. . No. 162.