The Udvahatatva, however, points to one of the instances in which they deviated from the older writers. It states that a man, who has married thrice, must, if the wives are living, marry a fourth time. It may probably be due to the, inauspicious nature of the number three that this deviation occurred. A girl having the same name as her mother is not eligible for marriage, while the daughter of the preceptor could be married. A girl could be married into a family separated by three gotra from her father.

These are clearly derivations from the older laws, and the last may have been adopted on the analogy of the law relating to cousin-marriage existing in South India especially. The younger brother can supersede elder only under certain circumstances, if the elder is an outcast, or has left the country, or has taken orders or is engaged in the practice of Yoga.

The marriageable age of the girl is fixed as in the later Smritis. By violating this law the father of the girl will incur sin analogous to that of killing a Brahmin. In this connection the author, while quoting the ancient authorities, mentions a strikingly interesting verse from the Mahabharata, which goes against all assumption of the existence or sanction of child-marriages by the earlier lawgivers.

' Trimsatvarshah shodasabdam bharyam vindeta nagnikam '.

' One of thirty should marry a bride of sixteen.' It throws light on two important points: (1) the marriageable age of a girl fixed in ancient law, and (2) the change in the meaning of the word Nagnika, which did not mean a child who did not learn to wear clothes as in later law-books. Side by side with this we have the injunction quoted by the same author from the Smrtisara: 'Marriage above seven years is lawful for all castes '.