In reply to this, it has been said that such cases have to be discarded,
as they are the deeds of gods and hence not suitable for adoption by human beings. The
marriage of a cousin can, however, is deemed as valid on the support of scriptures and, as
it slips through the limit of consanguinity by this, support of the text of
Vajasaneyi-Samhita. In the earlier law-books the only daughter of a father was technically
termed a Putrika.
The lawgivers of the North, until Manu's time have stated definitely
that she should inherit the property of her father; and as the legal heir has the right to
offer funeral oblations, she could take the place of a son. We have also observed in this
connection that the allusion in the Vedas is clearly to this effect and as the legal heir,
she belonged to the family of her father. In Manu, however, we find contradictory opinions
but his view was certainly in support of the above.
We have all interesting verse from a mediaeval legislator, which throws
a flood of light on the subject. Laugakshi, a medieval lawgiver, says: 'The son of a
Putrika should offer Pinda and water at the Sraddha ceremony of his mother by the Gotra of
his maternal grandfather-so says Prajapati'. 29 The above gives information on two points:
a Putrika, on marriage, does not obtain the Gotra and Pinda of her husband, i.e. she bears
the same title as ho father and grandfather.
Hence her son, too, belongs to that family. It is this fear that was
the basis of discarding a Putrika for marriage, and the later lawgiver avoided this
difficulty by putting a side her legal right of direct in heritance and transferring it to
her son. We thus find the lawgivers vehemently protesting against the
marriage of a brother less maiden. Madhava charya definitely states 'A girl whose father has not
distinctly expressed his opinion as to whether he will install his daughter as a Putrika
or not should not be wedded'. 30
The earlier lawgivers have not stated clearly the marriageable age of a
girl. It is in Kautilya that we first come across any definite age fixed for determining
the majority of a girl. This was, of course, meant for state purposes, as after that age
she was liable to punishment if she transgressed the law. But the marriage able age of a
girl is not clearly stated anywhere in his, book. In Manu, however, we find a reference to
the fixed age at which a girl and a boy were to be married. According to him a man of
thirty should wed a girl of twelve, and a man of twenty-four a girl of eight.