Coming next to the question of the law of partition and inheritance, we
find two special Schools being developed in the commentaries on Mitakshara and
Dayabhaga, the former more or less being authoritative all over India, and the latter only in
Bengal. Jimutavahana gives more prominence to the actual usage's or his times than to the
letter of the written law, and thus differs from the ancient authoritative digests in some
respects.
Among the various points discussed by those digests, importance has
been given to the right of maintenance of women. According to the rules laid down here, a
claim to maintenance has been extended to 'married women who are not recognized as
legitimate wives'. his change in the scope of the rule was made to give effect to
the older law, which made it compulsory on the part of men to maintain a widow, and to
evade the modern law, according to which a sonless widow is recognized as an heir to her
husband's property.10
All the writers of the Mitakshara School are in full agreement with
this principle of inheritance. The widows and daughters of a man who has no son can never
claim more than a mere maintenance. The rules of the Smrtis regarding the rights of these
and other women have been restricted by them accordingly, and the wives, mothers, sisters,
and the rest are eligible only for a share of the property. Where the heirs to the
property of the deceased choose to remain undivided, all their female relations may claim
maintenance and nothing more.
The Smrti Chandrika, too, shares the same view and asserts1l, on the
strength of the Vedic text declaring the incapacity of women to inherit, that a mother has
the right to maintenance only. The same author,12 basing his views on Apararka and
others, explains literally the text of Yajnavalkya13, which declares that in the cases
where father divides his property equally among his children, the married daughters have
the right to inherit their share; but in that case they shall not take, the share
themselves, but hand it over to their husbands.
The author of the Madanaratna and others share this opinion; but the
author of the Viramitrodaya l4 refutes the view of the author of Smrti-Chandrika with
success. He points out that the shares of the married daughters should be regarded as their
Stridhana. Both the Madhaviya and the Vivadatandava are opposed to the view of the
Smrti-Chandrika, The followers of the Mitakshara, however, have generally adopted the
other view of Yajnavalkya. By this, a woman who already has her Stridhana can take
only a part of the property equivalent to a son's share.15