Among the later lawgivers, Manu does not lay emphasis on gotra but stresses Sapinda relationship in marital relations. Yajnavalkya agrees with Manu. The original text of Manu on which the author of Mitakshara bases his argument does not mention the prohibition of as gotra marriages but lays special stress on Sapinda relation. But it is to be seen that under the guise of custom or usage, marriages contracted within the same Sapinda relationship are considered valid in some parts of India.

In regard to property and inheritance the status of woman in India was far superior to that of her confreres in any other country of that age. A woman was entitled to separate property on which she had absolute power. It is called Stridhana. This was sanctioned by the earliest of the law-givers, though the later commentators divided it into different categories. Vijnanesvara bases his exposition on this point on a verse of Yajnavalkya (II. 148) and explains it to include the property which a woman got by inheritance, purchase, partition, seizure and finding. 

He has thus widened its scope to cover the etymological meaning of the word and reconciles with Manu by saying that the six-fold classification of Stridhana by Manu was merely illustrative and not exhaustive. A daughter is not left out in the Laws of Inheritance. Both Manu and Brihaspati say: "As is self, so is a son, and a daughter is equal to a son ; how then, when one's self is living in the form of one's daughter, can anyone else take the wealth?"