and full control. He has a right to take it, even though no distress exist. Hence, though the goods be hers, they do not constitute woman's property, because she has not independent power over them, (Dá. bhá. p. 75 ;) and because, according to the above text of KÁTYÁYANA the husband has absolute dominion over that property.*

During her husband's life, a woman has also no absolute dominion over the property given her by him; and she has not even after his death the power of making a gift, &c., of the immovable property given by the husband. That is laid down by KÁTYÁYANA and NÁRADA:— "Let the woman place her husband's donation as she pleases, when he is deceased: but, while he lives, she should carefully preserve it, or else (if unable to do so,) commit it to the family.”—KÁTYÁYANA. "What has been given by an affectionate husband to his wife, she may consume as she pleases, when he is dead, or may give it away, excepting immovable property.”+-NÁRADA. Consequently,

Vyavastha

429. The movable property given by a husband does not become absolute Strí·dhan only so long as he lives; but the immovable property given by him does not become so even after his death.

Vyavastha. 430. The other descriptions of Strí-dhan de

fined in the texts cited, namely,-the wealth

presented in the bridal pro(3,) received from the father's

received at the nuptial fire (1), cession (2) given by the father relatives (4,) given by the mother (5,) received from the mother's relatives (6,) property received from the husband's relatives (7,) presented on her husband's espousal of another wife (8,) the gift subsequent (9,) subsistence (10) ornaments (11,) fee or perquisite (12,) gains,‡ (13,) and whatever is given to the husband or any person intending the benefit of the woman (14,) are Stridhan even during the life of husband.

* At present however, all those descriptions of Strí-dhan, excepting only the immovable property given by a husband, are considered and used as absolute Strí-dhan.—See Macn. H. L. Vol. I. pp. 40 & 112.

+ Coleb. Dá. bhá. pp. 75, 71, 76;—Dá. T. p. 40;—Dá. kra. sang, pp. 37, 35, 42. The meaning of the passage is this: wealth given to her by her husband, she may dispose of, as she pleases, when he is dead; but while he is alive, she should carefully preserve it. This is intended as a caution against profusion.-Coleb. Da, bha. p. 72.

Explained at pages 681 & 683.

EXTENT OF A WOMAN'S POWER OVER HER STRIDHAN,
AND THAT OF HER HUSBAND OVER

THE SAME.

Vyavastha

431. The husband has authority over that which the woman has obtained from any other than the family of her father, mother, or husband, and in that which she has gained by the exercise of an art, such as painting or spinning. He is entitled to take it even without the occurrence of any distress.*

Therefore, notwithstanding the woman has ownership in both descriptions of property, she has not independent power in regard to it; on the contrary, it appearing from the text that her husband has authority over such property, his permission authorising the disposal of it must be obtained by the woman.*

Vyavastha ́

432. Save and except the wealth of the above two descriptions and that which has been given to her by her husband, a woman is at liberty to dispose of all other descriptions of Strí-dhan by gift, mortgage, sale, and so forth, independently of her husband, who has no power to take the same without being in distress.*

That which is received by a married woman or a Authority. maiden, in the house of her husband or of her father, from her husband or from her parents, is termed the gift of her affectionate kindred (n.) The independence of women, who have received such gifts, is recognised in regard to that property; for it was given by their kindred to soothe them and for their maintenance. The power of women over the gifts of their affectionate kindred is ever celebrated, both in respect of donation and of sale according to their pleasure, even in the case of immovables (b.)*-KÁTYÁYANA.

* W. Dá, kra, sang. pp. 40, 41. See Coleb, Dá. bhá, pp. 75, 76.

(n) That which is received by a married woman from the family of her husband, or from the family of her parents, and by a damsel from the family of her parents, is the " gift of affectionate kindred.” Such is the meaning.-Dá. kra. sang. p. 41.

What is obtained from kind relations, that is, persons of her father's, mother's, or husband's family, is the gift of her affectionate kindred. Dáya-bhága, p. 76 § 25;-Dáya-tattwa. p. 41.

(b) Even in the case of immovables," relates to immovable property other than that which has been bestowed upon her by her husband, for a prohibition exists against the gift or sale by a woman in regard to immovable property given to her by her husband.-Dá. kra. sang. pp. 41, 42.

Consequently,

Vyavastha'

433. Even after her husband's death, a woman is incompetent to dispose of by gift, sale, and so forth, the immovable property given to her by her husband.†

But in the case of immovables bestowed on her by Authority. her husband a woman has no power of alienation by gift or the like. So NÁRADA declares: "What has been given by an affectionate husband to his wife, she may consume as she pleases, when he is dead, or may give it away, excepting immovable property." It follows from the specific mention of "given by a husband;" that any other immovable property, except such as has been given to her by him, may be aliened by her. Else* (if this text forbid donation in the case of immovables in general,) the preceding passage concerning the power of women in respect of donation and of sale, "according to their pleasure even in the case of immovables," would be contradicted.-Dáya-bhága, page 76 § 23.

· 'Else,

that is, if this text forbid donation in the case of immovables in general,Coleb. Dá bhấ, p. 76.

+ Vide Dá. kra, sang. pp. 41. 42;-Coleb. Dá. bhá. p. 76.

So NÁRADA declares :-"What has been given by

Authority. an affectionate husband to his wife, she may con

sume as she pleases, when he is dead, or may give it away, excepting immovable property."

Vyavastha

434. As regards, however, the movable pro

perty given by a husband, a woman is restrained from disposing of it by gift, &c., during his life only, after which she becomes vested with power to do so.

CONCLUSION.

A caution against a woman's profusion, during her husband's life, of the property given to her by her husband being announced by the text-" but, while he lives, she should carefully preserve it, or else commit it to the family," and the text of NÁRADA above cited perpetually prohibiting alienation of the immovable property only given by a husband, it necessarily follows that, after her husband's death, a woman has power to aliene the movable property given to her by him.-See ante p. 686.

Vyavastha 435. In a famine or other distress, or for the performance of a religious act indispensably necessary, a husband can take his wife's Stri-dhan 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.

Authority.

However, if the husband has no means of subsistence, without using his wife's separate property, in a famine or other distress, he may take it in such circumstances, but not in any other case.-Dá. bhá. pp. 76, 77.

So JÁGNYAVALKYA declares: "A husband is not liable to make good the property of his wife, taken by him in a famine, or for the performance of a duty, or during illness, or while under restraint† (m.)

* See Dá. kra. sang. pp. 41, 42, and Coleb. Dú. bhά.

p. 76.

†The last hemistich of this verse is not the same in the Daya-krama-sangraha and Daya-tattwa as in the Daya-bhaga, wherein it is “na strioi dá tumarhati,” (he is not liable to make good to the woman,) whereas the reading inserted in the two former books is "nákamo dítumarhati" (he is not liable to make good unless willing :) this latter reading is considered to be more proper and reasonable.

(m) 'While under restraint,'—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.—Dá. kra. sang. p. 42.

KÁTYÁYANA 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 calamity as a famine or the like:

:

Vyavastha

436. Neither the husband, nor the son, nor the father, nor the brothers, can assume the power over a woman's property to take it or to 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 becomes rich. Bat if the husband have a second wife, and do not show honor to his first wife, he shall be compelled by force to restore her property, though amicably lent to him (1.) If food, raiment (s,) and dwelling (a) be withheld from the woman, she may exact her own (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, in the form of a loan, be rendered with interest: the words 'with interest (sa-vriddhim') must not be supposed a discriminative of "stri-dhan (the woman's separate property,)" for supposing this to be the case, sa-vriddhi would be the proper form in which the word would appear.†

(r) Merely the principal."]-Here the insertion of the word "merely" is intended to preclude (the payment of) interest.

(1) But if' &c.-the meaning of which is, that if the husband, after making use of the separate property of one wife, reside with another

Coleb. Dá bhà. pp. 76, 77;—Dá, kra- sang. pp. 42, 43;-Coleb. Dig. Vol. III. pp. 573, 574, & 581,

† Dá. kra. sang. pp. 44,45.