CHAPTER 6

CRIMES AND LEGAL RIGHTS

JUSTIC E IJM)ER THE MARATHAS

_ During the period under the study, tliere was an organised judiciary. This judiciary, hke the other branches

-of administration, was much influenced in the organisational matters by the Muslim tradition, but the basic ideas

and features were derived from the Hindu sources. Tliei e is thus, a co-mingling of Hindus and Muslim traditions j n the legal institutions.

The sources of Law were constituted by the DiiarrtuisJuulitras, tfie hUtakshara, the VyavaJuxt cirtiavitklia,

the Dariakcvnalakara, the Farasaramiuihaviyani, the Chaturvaragachiritamaru and the like. The Manusmruti,

thouyi of ancient times, was yet used. Besides there were law-books containing laws relating to caste disputes

- (Yatiniraya) which were consulted ;'or settling caste disputes.

The customary unwritten laws formed another important source. The laws administered by the Courts of

Law included tiie law of mairiage, tlie of adoption, the law of inheritance, the law of propeity, fiie law of

, succession and the like. Tliese were fashioned by the injunctions of the medieval law-givers as well as the

,uevailing local customs. ✓

Judicial liieraixhv:

ITie Peshwas who acted in the name of the King [Chatrapati] enjoyed the highest judicial powers. The

Nvayadhish however was the Chiel Justice. He enjoyed jurisdiction in both, the civil and criminal matters.

Subhedars who had received the M i i U i l i k Seal enjoyed an original jurisdiction. Altliougli they were placed in charge of different Subha.s, they were mostly residing in or near Pune. This was in times of N:uia

Phadnavi?^, the '^r-subha of Konkan, tlie Subhednr of Juniiar, and tlie Subhedar of Pune excluding the city of

Pune. Besides, there were some oUtcr ofTicers, who were asked to act as judges due to tlieir abiht}'. Such were the Subhedar of Kalyan, Shivrampant 'Fhatte, the Phadnis of Khandesh and some others.

Petty cases were tried by olficials called MitsaddLs'. If the cases were important, tlie Mutsaddis presented

^!iem to Nfina Phadnavis, who usually refened them to the qualified judges.

In the Parganas, Kcvyals and villages, the courts were held as when necessary. Some places such as

Paithan, Satara, Pali, Pune and Nasik, were famous for dispensing justice. Important cases were generally brought to these places.

Judicial Procedure:

A Court of Law was styled Majlis. I h e trial of a case in hie local area itself was generally prelerred. If ihe cases related to religious matters, they were taken to special courts called Brahma-Sabha or Jati-Sabha.

Wlien a plaintiff filed a suit or lodged a complaint {Karina or Tahir), a Majlis was summoned for trj’ing

Llie case. The presiding judge of the Mnjlis was called Sabhanayaka The presiding judge for a Pargana Majlis

^as a Deshmukh, that of a village Majlis was the Ahkadam, that of a Kasba Majlis was the Shete, and that of a

Bratima-Sabha was the Dftarmadhikari.

llie i e were special officials called Pariksliakas or PrasJuukas at the famous centres such as Satoi a or

’nli, whose dut>’ it was to cross-examine t}ie litigants and tlieir witnesses. When the court was ensembled for

rying a case, the plaintiff or theAgrayt'oJi presented his side of the case in writing or Takrir. Then the defendant

ir Pashchimwadi was sent for, when he presented himself before the court, the Takrir of tlie plaintiff was read

ut to him. He was allowed to defend himself by refuting the charges made against him, and the statemait of his

ide was carefully recorded

M er the first statements of both the parties were heard, the plaintiff was again asked to give his

^plication (Ptirsis), and the defendant, his rejoinder (Pursis), Tliereupon, the evidence produced by both the

krties was carefully examined by the members of tiie Court .ind a decision airived at. The decision was given in

le fomi of AhJtzar, beai'ing tlie naiiius and destinations of the membeis of the Majlis.

1 The Javapaira or the Mahzar, according to tlie Hindu Law -Books, was to contain a brief statement of the ilaintiff and of the defendant, the evidence produced by theni, the deposition of witnesses, the relevant liscussions and arguments, the Smriti Texts applicable, the opinions of the Sabhyas and the decision arrived at.

ITie Chief Justice would then sign the Jayapatra and authenticate it by affixing the royal seal. Othei l^embers of the assembly acquainted with the Sn^iriti would also sign the Mahzar, though not acting as the judges, liis would indicate that the decree was acceptable to them and that it was fully supported by the Smritis.

These Mahzars largely conformed to the injunctions of medieval Hindu jurists, but it also included some

.‘uslim elements. For example, it included towards the end some important elements of the Sigil and the Hindu egal tenninology was partly replaced by the Persian terms.

An appeal from the original Court and to the higher court was allowed if the litigants were not satisfied

^vitli it and its proceedings. The place where tlie case originated and to whose court or M islis the case was first istituted was known as Mayculial and the place where any other court was situated was knowTi as simply TJial.

he decisions given by the Court of the Thai was styled as Thalapaira, and the same was reissued by the original

ourt in the form of a Mahzar.

It seems that after 17 50 A.p., the method of trial by the Majlis was gradually supplanted by the Panchayat. 1 lie judicial procedure in the Panchayat was similar to the one followed in tlie Majlis, except for some minor

ii.'j.ges.

^ The judgement given by tlie Panchayat was known as Scvxvnsa and the decree finally handed over to the

/inning party was styled the Nivcuipaira The chief Justice was assisted by an Armn and some Dqftardars or xirkuns 'a his judicial matters.

There were special books which were consulted while deciding caste-disputes. The society gave more

nportance to tradition and custom than to written law. The Khjcdisi or the Sabhasad of a Majalis, seems to have een well ticqiiainted witli the principles ol i ,iudu Law. ITie custom s of the different castes were scnipuloiisly

b^erved b\ the niaiibeis oi those castes. It seems tliat llie state was not allowed to interfere with liieir

11 'iiuuy ri^s^it o f deliveiingjustice

153 "om-t Fees :

Thae was no fixed aile^ as regaids couit fees, llie Diwan or the Government officer could demand

Hcu ki or Gutiiiagivi from the parlies, successful or defeated respectively, if they had laid down a stake or wager

)j[h2iha of Jiari, JitUi) (Hari Jintiche Katbe) before the trial, to the effect that the party who would succeed should pay so much money as Harki or Slienii and the one who would fail should pay so much money as a fine The successful partv' often willingly paid to the Government a sum of money which was known as KJmshi Sfienii.

The public officers generally collected dues known as Harki or Shemi from the successful party, according to his capacity and the nature of the subject of the dispute before granting Khurdakhat or Watan-

)otra (of Shahu Period), for the enjoyment of Watan and issuing of orders to the local officers for the proper ixecution of the decree It appears that if the party in whose favour, the suit was decided, be unable to pay the lues, then a document known ^% Yadi-Watanpatra or sunimary of Watanpatra was granted to him.

Most of the castes had gramscuuJtas or panchayats to administer justice. The duty of a Jat-patil or the lead-man of the caste was to select the disputes and punish the culprits. Most of the disputes were in the nature if some man eloping with the wife of another; or a widow or a maiden being pregnant; or in the remairiage,

Siotur. the bride’s father taking more bride-price than was customary to caste tradition; or husband not-

ohabiting with the wife; or dispute in maiTiage settlement; or committing acts against caste customs like a

\olluiiin woman wearing Kumkum on her forehead, etc.

. The Mahar caste had their owti panchayat, Jatpanchayat, which dealt with acts by a woman leaving her r-

usband and staying with another man, and being pregnant by him. In such cases, the nther man would be

Lini'shed with a fine of Rs. 20/-. A w ife was not pennitted to remarry (Mhotur) till her husband had divorced her

r she was a widow. If a widow (haih rehimi stree) became pregnant, the caste did not allow her to remany the

lan, (the father of the child), till she had delivered the child, beranse it was believed that if she deliv ered a

^ghter, the daugliter along with the mother would be nifUTied to tlie man, the fatlier i

154

/ If a woman was accused of immoral behaviour, she would need a lot of evidence to prove her innocence, t was very diftlcult to collect it. Although the field for careers or social intercourse was veiy limited, even in heir restricted field, women wei e involved in criminal activities. Tlie nature of the crimes committed seems to

Y simple, tiieie was no scope for complexity or intellectual excellence or refineness. Tlie crimes conunitted leerns to belong to same nature. TJie criminals belonged to all castes and classes. In all other castes, the women vere accepted by the society, after performing the prescribed penalties and penances. But, in the Brahmin

Miimunity, she was never accepted by her community. Once a criminal, she was always a criminal.

VdultCTT :

Adultery means, sexual intercourse with a wife of anotlier person, without tlie husband’s consent, iangrahana in Dhannashastra means, the unlawful coming together of a man and a woman for sexual enjoyment, rhe punishments varied according to the castes of the concerned parties; i.e. the man and woman. Adulteiy was cgarded as a grave offence and since it involved two parties, botli, the man and the woman were punished, during the Peshwa period, vai ious punisliments were in practice, the common being the paying of a fine. The imount of fine was not fixed, it depended on the parties paying i t . There was no compulsion to pay the fine in psh, it could be paid in kind. i.e. Bhikaji, a cowherd (Gawal:^ committed adultery with a woman of the same aste. Botii of them were ordered to pay a ilne of one Khandi (a measure of 20 niaunds) ghee to the joveiTunent .

Malhar Dinkar Deshpande, of tarf Chakan, in 1765 - 66 A.D., had illicit intercourse with the wife of hankar P.uidya, a Gujarathi Braliimn of Changdeo in pargtina Eldabad. He later killed Shankeir, her husband, lalhai's vatan was ordered to be attached In most of the cases tried, a man was punished with fine and he buid then be set free.

1 iri ine auove vuac, iviamai a vatoii v/i ...... — - ,------

^Nothing is knoun about the wife of the pei son murdered and who had committed adultery with Malhar.

Rukliniini, a Brahmin woman, having committed adulteiy with Brahmins and Shudra, and having food

■"u illi the latter was sent to prison in Fort Shivneri Rukluni, in the above case, committed an offence of t adultery witli several men, both Brahmins and Shudras. All her paitners could not be traced and thereby

^punished. In addition, she had food witli a Shudra, a grave offence for a Brahmin woman. She was imprisoned at

^Fort Shivneri. This type of punishment was not prescribed for a certain period, which meant lifelong. The

prisoner was givoi a ration of 1 seei foodgrains daily and two sets of clothes pa- annum. There she would work,

^like grinding tlie com or making iron.

Sai Deshmukh of Chikkodi got drunk and had illicit intercourse with Balaji Hari Joglekai'; she and hei'

•^paramour were imprisoned at different forts. Tliere was a Kunbin with her and it is ordered that she be given

medium type of ration A letter of Chief Justice Ranishastri Prabhune, orders that if his guilt was proved,

_ Balaji was ready to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and therefore both Sai and Balaji were sent to the officers in

charge of the case. ITie Officer was also ordei ed to extract maximum fine, the least being Rs. 10,000/-. On

further inquiry, Balaji confessed tliat he had committed adultery, but denied of having consumed alcohol. He

_ furtlier stated that Sai had cheated him in matter of alcohol. When the officers had arrived, the>' were led to

believe about the alcohol, they had beaten him and out of fear of tlie beating, he had confessed whatever the

officers had asked him to confess. To prove his innocence regarding alcohol, Balaji was prq^ared to do an

_ Ordeal (a tire ordeal).

Consuming alcohol, was considered a carnal sin and hence Balaji confesses adultery but denies about

^ alcohol, and is prepared to do an ordeal to prove his innocence in the matter, Sai had committed both the

offences. The most unlucky person in tiie matter is the Kunbin (9 female slave or a maid servant) who though no

fault of her own had to be in imprisoiuiient witli hei' misU esi.

156 In 1772 - 73 A.D. Janhavi, a Brahmin widow, allowed her hair to grow, ( she had tonsured her head after le death of her husband), put on bangles and lived with ,Anant Mukund Golak as his mistress. She bore him a

p and alter 5 -6 years she was sent to prison with her son at Fort Purandhar. It was ordered that she be

Tiployed in the work of preparing mortar

In the above case, Janliavi seems to be an ordinary woman, but she had courage to revolt against tlie

jtablished practice. She grew her hair and wore bangles, thus refusing to be dressed and behave like a widow.

ie lived with Antaji Golak, who did not marry her, also bore him a son. She lived with him till her son was 7-8

jars old, when her offence was discovered and she was punished. Antaji did not marry her, he just gave a

ipport to her. She was punished for adultery, and not for growing her hair or wearing bangles. After Antaji’s / ' his widow, son and two brothers were held guilty and had to pay a fine of Rs. 16,000/-

One Brahmin widow, who di i not tonsure her head, had illicit intercourse with a Kasar, (a man from the

wer caste) at Narayar^aon. ITie Kasar was airested and she was driven out of the place. She went to Junnar

d committed the same offence witli a tailor. Later, she confessed of committing various such offences. She

d two sons, whose thread ceremonies were performed. The sons were allowed to remain in the Brahmin

jiimunit}’ and she was to be divorced from the caste This divorce meant to be a punisliment, she was

[;onununicated from her caste. As she had committed grievous and various offences, her crime could not be

mpensated by penance or fine. The orda was to punish only tlie w'oman and her sons were allowed to remain

[lie Brii)u7iin cast.

A woman of Kaluad in pargana Pimpri, was deserted b\’ ho' husband and having notliing to subsist on;

ame the mistress of Kasoji Karkata Chaugula of Tardole in pargana Supe. She bore him 4--5 children. Her

^iive^ were awaie of tliis and often CciJiie to K ajkata's house while she was there and received presents from

1. N ot withstanding this, her brother complained to the Sublia in Pune tliat his sister had been forcibly taken

jy by Karkata. a p' ocess was issued against Karkata (on account of which he had to pay Rs. 30/-) and he and

woman were taken to Pune for ftirtliei- trial. The Human on being questioncvl by Gaiigadliarrao and Maliipatrao, serving at the Subha, stated tliat she as living with Karkata of her own free will. Gangadhairao and Mahipati ao, however, gave Karkata a beating id compelled him to pay Rs. 300/- as fine. Karkata appealed to the Peshwa and it was decided that as the

Oman had been abandoned by her Imsband and as she was living witli Karkata of her own accord, the fine be burned and tlie woman be restored to him

Karkata had not married her but had supported her as if a wife; while her legal husband had abandoned

T. .She had bome him 5/6 children; her relatives had accepted this new relation and had visited them and

cepted presents from Karkata. On her statement that she was living witli Kariiata of her own free will, he was

quitted. She was restored to him. It seems her wishes were taken into consideration.

In 1754 - 55 AD., a sanad to'Babajirao Rane, olTicer of Fort Chandwad records that a widow (Randaki)

’Devji Paratha Koli has been brou^t to the fort on a charge of misconduct, (tufaan, Badammal, adultery), tier

stemen had come to the Huzur and requested that she should not be made a slave. Having regard to her status,

rarati), a tine of Rs. 50/- had been inflicted on her. Tlie officer, on receiving the fine, should release her and

nd her over to tlie castemen

In 1755 - 56 A.D., Shankaraji, son of Narsoji bin Krishnaji Chavan of Kasba Khandala, then residing at

^ u/,e Parola in pargana Khandala, committed adulter}' with the wife of Shaliaji bin Gangaji Chavan of the same

lage. Shankaraji was therefore ordered to be brought before the Huzur. He failed to appear and absconded,

s father, Narsoji was therefore brought to the Huzur and fined Rs. 500/-. Narsoji was further directed not to

ide in tlie village in question or in any of the surrounding vill; i,es In this case, the olfender absconded and

ice his father was punished by a fine and ordered to leave the village.

In 1755 - 56 A.D., a girl from Powar family at Korigad in tarl'Asher Adheme, having committed adultery,

s kq)t in imprisoniTient and was sold to Gangadliai bhat Karve for Rs. 30/-.

158 "'aiigadliarbhat Karve and hand over the girl lo him

Hie punishment for adultery was to pay line and il'tlie offender could not pay it, she was sold as a slave.

«he Powai' girl was first imprisoned and later sold as a slave. y hi 1759 - 60 A.D., Adai, a woman from Patil family of Wadgaon in Karyat Nimsod Mayni, committed adultei7 with Zagadpure Gosavi of Puse-Savali. Both wa-e brought before the Huzur. Intercessions, on the parts

’•f both of them were made for the pardon of their offence. They were fined Rs. 7,000/- and were released

,'fo infomiation as to whether the fine of Rs. 7,000/- was to be paid by each or whether both had to pay it

[ogetiier, was available. Pardon was given if there were intei cessions on the part of the parties.

In 1781 - 82 A.D., *^ili, wife of Janoji Drawara of Dholwad in Prant Junnar, committed adultery

Badakarma) witli Devji Khandoji Chirichwada. Devji was fmed and was set free. Janoji tlien petitioned to the r 1 iuzur about Aliili. On the appeal from the husband, the Huzur ordered that her nose be cut off us punisliment

llie offence of adultery was committed by both of them, yet, Devji was set free after paying the fine while Ahili

lad her nose cut off, a permanent disfigurement. In Aiiili’s case, the punishment of disfigurement was due to

Aliili being a habitual offender and punished in such a way that it would publish her offence.

^ In 1747 - 48 A.D., the wife of a Mussalmaii cartman committed adultery. Orders were issued to the

)ificer in chargc-. Prant Bassein to.keep her at Fort .Amala and to employ her as labourer There is no record

^f tlie man with whom she had conjiniitted adultery- and only the woman in this case, is punished.

Some times, a woman was fornd guilty and punished for hei' offence and after some lime her relatives,

iusband or father would tiy to release hei eithei by substituting the offender or guarantying her future conduct

g. Janaki Lagadin was imprisoned at Fori Vi.sapur for adulleiy. Fler fatJier Shivaji Gaikwad prayed for her

{2 0 } ^lua^e. Mis prayei' was granted on his stfinding surety for lier future good conduct

159 Or that of a woman having corniniUed adultery, was made a slave as a punishment. She was imprisoned nt the Foil of Satara. Her husband, who was serving in the aniT>’, came to the Huzur find olTered to give another

iave to the government in place of his wife His olTer was accepted and the woman was handed over to her

Tliere were records to show how a false charge or a charge that could not be proved were dealt with

Rs, 45/- Nazar from Sidoji, Mali from Pune, was received. He was acquitted of a charge of adultery brought

-iiiinst him by Mani, wife of Yesaji Wadekar. Rs. 15/- Nazar from Satwaji Wadekar of Pune, was received. His

^aughter-in-law was acquitted of a ;harge of adultery brought against her by Dhindaji Chavan of Wetalpeth.

Nazar means a present to a superior and Harki Karai' were made from both the parties who gave Nazar,

f^arki comes from tiie Sanskrit word Harsha, or joy or deligiit. Harki was money paid to the Court, as token of

lis gratification, by a successful suitor or litigant. Karar or contracts were taken from the parties on whom

harges were not proved.

Bigamy is a felonious offence of a husband or wife, by marrying again during the life time of the first

* ife or husband. Since polygamy was a common practice of the period under study, offence of bigamy could be

ommitted by women only. The following cases would indicate the treatmoit rendered to the offenders

^nimitting bigamy.

Sometimes the bride s party, out of greed, took bride-price, although there was no such custom in their

.irrununiry A Bralunin widow, Bhiubai Vyas, married her daughter twice to two different grooms. Tliis

labled the mother ol t!ie bride, to collect tlie double amount of bride price. The Peshwa Government, having

foniiation, airested the mother, daugliter and her biotlier and imprisoned them at Fort Shivneri Further

;tails of the above case are not available, but the question arises, vvhich of tlie two marriages was a valid one?

lie entire family, tlie mothei, the chief offaider, Uie brothei cind tlie bride, all imprisoned at Fort Shiviieri,

dicates tliat the family was excommunicated. TTiere was no prescribed punishment for a particular otTence,

1 f 'j’i etices w ac punisnea mosiiy wim imes. inose vvno could noi puy lines were imprisoned. I'lie duration ol prisonmenf was not fixed. 'Fhe bride in question, was punished for no fault of her.

Tliis case is from the Mali (Flovvemicn) caste whei e rcman iage of a woman was permitted. In 1752 A.D. ighter of Bapuji Mali, was remarried, (Pat marriage), to Nimbaji Yesu Zagada. Nimbaji had not inquired ► ether her tirst husband Dhondaji was alive or not and whettier she was divorced or not. VVhetJier she was free

f 23^ be married again. Nimbaji, was fined Rs. 80/- for not making proper enquiries . We may conclude from

'lunishment awarded to Nimbaji, that his wife was claimed by her first husband, who got her custody.

Tlie question arises what about the girl married twice? Was she willing to go to her first husband? Did

had a sotl comer to her second husband? Did Dhondaji, hei' first husband, who had claimed her, treat her

h due respect for a wife or did he later deserted her for the offence of the second marriage? Did he think she

1 uapure (blu ashata) and tlierefore deserted her? If deserted, what was her fate? What did slie do for her

;lihood? Was she compelled to work as a Kunbin(a female slave). The Govenmient tried its best to preserve

morals of the society; it allowed each caste to be ruled by its caste niles; punished those who violated them.

, in this case, tlie sympatliy goes to Nimbaji who was fined for not making proper inquiries. But the father

;uji, who had agreed and mairied his daughter twice, was left scot free.

A certain Mahai of Saswad, had approached the authorities to reclaim his wife, who had been mairied to

other person, while he had been away on service, witliout waiting for his return as was prescribed,

.vever, he l:^iter agreed to forfeit hir claim, paitly moved by the arbitration of his castemen and partly for the

:on that his wife had children from her second husband

In tlie above case, tlie woman’s oifence was that she did not wait for tlie prescribed period before

lying again. The period tiius prescribed was generally 5 to 7 years. If the first husband was believed to be

I there must not be an>’ infonriation about him, for the prescribed period. I The Mahar, Sidnak, in the above case, had first confessed tJiat he was away for a longer time and had no

ontact with the family. He had refused to accept her, although he had come to reclaim her. He had refused on lie gi ounds iliat she was like an used vessel, tlierefore impure for the use of the first master. He gave up his

laiiTi, on the second husband paying him some amount. Furtho" details of the case are not available, as to the mount paid to Sidnak by the second husband nor about tlie feelings of the wife.

In 1797 A.D., a complaint was made by tlie father of a girl. His dauglito- Limbi, was man ied to Lingappa

ain. M er some time, Lingappa absconded and could not be traced. Even his brotliei', Savvanta, had no idea of lis whereabouts. Meanwhile, Limbi attained puberty.

I Sawanta gave Sodchithi, (a divorce deed), on his brol]ier’s behalf and tJie girl was remarried. Then

^ingappa returned and claimed his wife. She was returned to him. The father further states that according to the

aste custom, tlie wife, after tlie remarriage, does not go to the house of her first husband and the girl had come

»ack to her father. Tlie father pleas for permission to send the girl back to her second husband

Several points arise out of Uiis case; first being that tiie brother-in-law, Sawanta, gave tlie divorce on

ehalf of his brother. Did it mean anybody could give divorce on behalf of the husband? Secondly, botli the lusbands want her back. Legally,, the first husband had a claim over her, so she was sent to him. But her

|\clination seems to be with her second husband with whom she wishes to reside and had expressed it by coming iway from the first husband. Most important point is tliat tlie father has an understanding of his daugliter’s eelings and had come forward to support her.

« Sometimes, the marriage was peiformed witli one and the fatlier decided to mairy the daughter to another, vithout the divorce or waiting for tlie prescribed period. On 19*^^ November 1734 A.D. Khandoji Kumbhar

'lighozkar had given his daughter in marriage to one person and was now giving it to another. Khandoji was

^nedRs 2.S/- '

1 (•/: On Julv 1748 A.D. Dcvji Sonai’ of Keiidui , Talukti Paba!, had Miairicd tlie dauglilei ofPadinaji Soiiai

y Pat N1 lin iage. Ho" first husband was ahve, Devji was tln e d Rs 25/- as Gunhegari kunir

In both tiie above cases, tlie husbands of tlie second inan iage were lined. Tlieir fault was not making

^iper inquiries about the first husbands. Tliese cases also indicate that wives were the property of the first usbands. At any time the husband could claim the wife and she was given back to him. The second husbands

/ae fined, as punisliment for trespassing on the property of otlieis. Tliere were no records of the wife’s pail in

1 >econd mairiage.

lurder :

Morshet Badaka Vani of Somwar peth, confessed that he killed his wife, before the Huzur. Tlierefore iquiries were made. He had an account which recorded tiiat he had a large amount to be recovered from his jstomers. He prayed that Huzur should consider this side of his case and that he was ready to pay Rs. 2,500/- as

VfJieg(iri Kiirar which was already been paid ‘

Ihe olTender had confessed his crime, that he had killed his wife. He further applies that since he has

ven on credit a very large amount, his life should be pardoned to recollect it and he is pardoned by paying the

ne of Rs 2,500/-. A woman’s life is valued upto Rs. 2,500/- which hei' husband could easily pay. Thei e was no

h a punislunent his offence, except tJie fine.

On the other hand, Gangi, a Pardeshi woman, murdei ed her husband by administering arsenic to him. She

as therefore sent to prison “ This case was from the year 1779 - 1780 A.D. the woman was punished witii

iprisonment because probably she could not pay the fine.

^ Sindhu Gangadhar Joshi, Kasba Khcdc, Jurmar, killed his daughter-in-law, Krislmabai, on a charge of

163 jitery. The vicliin, Krishnabai was pregiiaiit by her hiisbaiid. It w ts proved that she was innocent ofliic charge,

e father-in-Iau was fined Rs. 300/- and as a penance ordei ed a pilgrimage Tlje victim was chajged with

jlteiy and she was pregnant from her husband. Tire offender was fined Rs. 300/- and a penance. Tliere seems

"be no r ^ l a r and uniform punishment for any particular offence. Even the state of the victim, her pregnancy,

r her acquittal from the charge, has made an>' impact on the punishment. It seems fine was the only common

nishnient ;ind it depended on tlie financial uacity of the offender to pay it.

Dattu Chaudhary and Sivaji Koli, of Mouze Changdeon, Yedalabad, had tlie information that Malhar

UKai Chakankar Deshpande (Kamvisadar) committed adultery with the wife of Shankar Pandye, a Gujrathi

ahinin. Later, Malhar arranged to kill Shankar Pandye. Dattu Chaudhary was fined Rs. 1,000/- for having the

i wledge of the offence but not disclosing it. Sivaji Koli was fined with Rs. 500/- for being the assassin

lere is no record available as to wliat happened to Shankai i\uidye’s wife, who had committed adultery with

alhar Deshpande MietJiei she was tried for the same offence?

Bapuji, son of Vitlial Trimbak Purandaie, killed a 8 years old daughter of Sadasliiv Bhikaji Purandare of

iswad. Bapuji was convicted of murder and is fined Rs. 2,500/-. The surety for this amount was taken from

itoba Naik Marathe Tliei e scLiiis to be the Sfime amount of fine for killing one’s wife and an eiglit years

VI girl.

Krishnaji Utekar, in 1782-83 A.D. killed two female slaves of a tailor of Pali. As a punishment, he was

dered to be blown from a gun Here, tliough tlie victims wei e slaves, the offence has been punislied with

:vere punishment.

Sadashiv Ganesh Kelkar, of Wada Fanase in Mouze Wade of Turf Khare Patan in l aluka Vijayadurga, wing murdered his brother’s wife was sent to prison. The otTcnce vva;^ committed in 1783 - 8-1 A.D The

ctiiri’s husband was Gunaji Ganesh of Wfiriiwade ti-om same taluka. 10 yeai's later, Sadashiv was released from

prison without being purified from the oiTcnce. In 1 792 - 93 A.D. he pr?iys to the Goveminent to purity him,

: 1 rU (iTei’ing to pay reasonabie sum as fine. His prayei' was gi anted, two lines, (one to be paid to the Goveninient and ither to tlie Bralimins for the purification) vvei c levied Here tlie culprit prays for purification and tlie prayer

5 aranled, y In 1787 - 88 A.D. Laxmara Saiokiie of Pune being concenied in the murder of a female servant, bscondcJ. He could not be found. His wife Rukhmini was therefore ordered to furnish security for her ppearance when required but she was unable to do so. She was tho'efore sent to prison in Sinhagad ' Here le wife is punished because the husjband had absconded and could not be found.

Tlie above mentioned cases were of murdei s committed by male olTenders and the victims wei e females,

liei e weie cases committed by females; e.g. Avadi Telin Sataikar was found to have had killed a girl of Maratha

fete. Avaji was found to be guilty and was fined Rs. 25/- Tlie usual punishments were those of fines,

.vadi was fined with a comparatively smaller amount because perhaps she did not have sufficient means.

Baku Petlie, wife of Bhagw'ant Anant Pethe of Nasik, c iitessed to tlie Huzur that she was residing with

er father Trimbak j\arayan Manohar, Vasti Mouze Vedha, Nasik. Her fatlier had adopted a son, Ganpati ao, who

as then 16 years old. Baku was in enmity with him and told Rama Bralimin, who was in service of Gujarathi.

ama, on her behalf, pushed Ganpatrao through tlie window of the upper floor. Ganpatrao fell dowTi and

l^bsequently died. Khanderao Trimbak Vedhekar made enquiries and had imprisoned Rama in a fort. Rama

jing ill and had suffered imprisonment for some time was later released. Baku had been punished witli

:conuuunicaLioii for past three years. She had applied to be purified from the sin of killing her brotlier. Her

fence was that of killing a brother and a Brahmin. It was resolved to order a penance as well as fine her for

at otTence. She was ordered to pay Rs. 1,000/- for her penance and the same amount as fine. Rs. 1,000/- was

ent on her penance and she had paid Rs. 859/- as fine witli Rs, 141/- as balance to be paid by her'^"^'.

165 Rape :

Hiei e was only one case recorded, of rape being conuiiiUed. It does not mean, however, that tJiis otl'ence

was not conuniti d or that it was rarely conunitted. It needs a lot of courage for a victim of rape to come

K'orward and speak out that she was raped. Even though she is the victim, she is blamed for the commitment of

the rape.

Vithal Narayan son of Naro Krislina Joshi Kulkanii of MouzeNyasa, Junnar, committed rape on a seven

years old daugliter of a Brahmin. Vitlial confessed the offence and hence was imprisoned in a Fort. His father’s

(^9) share of Joshi Kulkanii was attached .

Suicide :

in the joint family set up. the young daughters-in-law were left to the mercy of their in-laws, especially

the motliers-in-law, who used to have resource to petty tyi aiuiy to which the husbands would become a paity.

Most of the cases were from the Brahmin community :ii I refer to suicides by women. Ill ti u:itment on

part of their in-laws, otlier relatives, seems to be the main cause of their suicide. Fines were imposed on their

^'clalive.s, according to their social status and ranks in the societ\'.

In 1765 - 66 A.D., a woman name Thama, daughter-in-law of Ranghobhat Dhekane of Pune, wished to go

witli her son, aged 6. to the riva; to batlie, one niglit in tlie montJi of Bhadrapad, there being an eclipse of the

moon, llie child was ill, and hence Rangliobhat told her not to go. She got vexed, went to tJie river and U*ied to

commit suicide, but was prevented from doing so and was brought home.

However, she again went out for the second bathe after :!ie eclipse was over and wni never seen L afteiAv-»r(is. Ranghobhat applied to the Government for pemDSsion to perform the necessary rites in regard to her

tleadi, so tliat there might not be any objectiotiB to the celebrations of festive ceremonies at his house. Tlie

166 vvomai! 'liairia. having cornniittei suicide, Rfinghobhat was made to undergo the penmice prescribed by the

Shastras and to pay a penalty to the ca-te,

A fine of Rs. 100/- was levied from Raiighobhat by the Government and the pennission asked by him was

^iven. 'ITie permission asked for was to be purified and to begin the daily routine and perfonn the rites and

rituals' ^

Bhavani, daugliter-in-law of Pandurang Bapuji Parad, ot'Ravivar Peth, Pune, committed thell in her own house. Hence, she was beaten on the face. Later, she took opium and committed suicide. Pandurang Parad was proved guilt>' in the matter and was sentenced to pay Rs. 5,000/- as Gunhegari Karar, or fine

Tlie rtillia-in-law is held responsible for tlie woman committing suicide and pays fine as punisliment.

Kashibai, daughter-in-law of Chimanbhat Udiiobhat Hinghe of Pune, was hai assed by her husband and hei' motlia-in-law. Hence she committed suicide by emeiging in the river. Hence, Chimanbhat was taken in the

custody for luitlier enquiries

The word Scisrunvcis means and indicates the ill-treatment to a married woman by tJie relatives of her husband. Sasttryvasbm is a young bride staying with the parents of her husband. A woman’s life in her in-law’s house, which was the custom in the ioint family set up, was a long period. The women had to continuously adjust and compromise with the numerous members of the family. Some had great tolerance, all did not.

A woman being beaten by her mother-in-law committed suicide. Her father-in-law, Mahadaji Khadake, was brought to the Huzur and inquiries were made with the result tliat he was acquitted

In 1752 - 53 A.D., a son of Tukarfim, Kulkami of Tumbure, having slapped his wife on the face, she

"''■mmitted suicide. The Brahmins of Karhad, after consulting me Shashtras, gave a decision exoneiating tlie

IS^ulkami and his son from the blaijie. ,'\n order was accordingly issued trom the Huzur ' .

167 Ill ?omc cases, the father-in-law was called for making the enquiries and latei' released. In othei s, he was

just called for. There is no record as iO vvhetiier he was punished or acquitted.

In 17S1 - 82 A.D. the vilTagei s of Mola, outi aged tlie modest>' of Shama, wife of Dado Jayrain, during

^ the Shimga holiday. She therefore committed suicide. Visaji hari was sent from the Huzur to inquire into the

matter. He tlned tlie olTenders and ordered that all tlie villagers should drink cow’s urine to purify tliemselves

and pay a cess (lax) Paity imposed by him. Trimbak Manaji complained to tlie Huzur. Tlie cess was remitted but

he was oidered to drink cow’s urine to purify h im s e lf O u tr a g e of a woman’s modesty, in this case was

considered as serious offence and Uie whole village was ordered to be purified. The person, who complained to

the Huzur, was remitted tlie cess, but was ordered to be purified as the villager as his collective duty.

Some petty offences were committed by tlie women and tliey were punished for tliem e.g. wife of Bal

Thakur, taught the Kunbin of Vishnu Maliadeo Athalye, ways and means to runaway from her master. Bal

Tliakur’s wife wns punished with a fine of 8 annas

To kidnap a child and tlien say its her own was a common offence. The reasons for this could be that many

women were unable to conceive. Even if they could conceive, the child mortality rate was vay high. In fe,v

cases Uiey vvi^mld give birtli to daugliters only. Tliere was no guarantee that the child would be a male one. Some

times, the offence was conunitted to satisfy tlieir maternal urges, in such cases kidnapping was the only

alternative open to them.

Tliei e was the custom of adopting a son was prevalent. But in the low inconic gi oup, this custom was

pointless. Motheihood, especially the mothei' of a son, was glorified. The following case reflects the attitude of

tJie society.

ITie wife of Visajipanf Lele, from Pune, gave birth 1 ' a son, while her sister delivered a daughter. Tlie

I sister, having no son w'ished orie. Hence the>' exch^uiged tlie infants, fliis exchange took place witliin (he first 12

days aflei llie birth. Only aniougst tlie liisiteis, however, two iiiontiis lata\ the siecret was out. Iho fatlier of the dauglitei', Visajipaiit’s bioUier-in-lavv, wished for a son too, bul not in such a manner. He had a wish to have a

son of his own if the God graced him with one So he complained to the Peshwa and the children were restored

to tlicir respective parents. Vi.

anotliei' was granted. Tlie wife of Hari Ragliopant Shinde, of Salpa, eloped with Jaganiiatii Shaiiu aj Kulkanii of

Kodhit near Saswad. Her husband came to claim her but she did not agree to go back with him. The husband

made an agreement (contract) bifore the Panchas, took Rs. 75/- and gave his claim on her *"’^1 Here the wife is

treated as the husband’s propeity no doubt, but she was also given a choice of residence. Her offence was that of

elopement yet she is not punished for it. 'Ilie husband seems to be satisfied with the price he had received for

giving up his claim over her. However, he could have had another wife. In this case, he received a bonus of

Rs 7S/- m addition.

Ghashiram Sawaldas, who was foimerly KoIm’oI or the Police inchaige of Pune city, fined a Brahmin

widow, Rs. 50/- for going to dine at another Brahmin’s house, under tiie pretence that her husband was alive.

Tlie Huzur considered that the charge was not proved and ordo-ed that the money be refunded to her there are

several poiiiis ai ising out of thio case. The woman was charged with cheating or misrepresenting her self as a

mairied woman when she was a widow. She attended tlie lunch as a married woman whose husband was alive. I Tliis status was considered as that of higJiest for a woman. But was not the hostess aware of tlie status while she

invited hei"/ Pune (hough the capital city of the Peshw'as, yet must have been small enougfi to have the

inJ'onnation in llie community f/ater, the chaige could not be proved and the woman was refunded the amount

of fine. How did she prove her innocence?

Alcohol was prohibited as its drinking was considered a canial sin. Tlie Government took precautions to

prevent its spread. Yet few women sold it as an only means of emning a livelihood.

169 In 1776 AD. tlie crime investigation departjncnt under tlie supei-vision of Nana Phadnavis, repoits a case thus, a widow (Bodaki) of Dravid family was found selling liquor at her home in Narayan Peth, Pune. 20/25 botties of liquor and goat meat was found in her house. It was found on further investigation that she was a

^vidow, had no otho- source of . .come and hence dealt in selling of liquor. She would not reveal any infonnation regarding the names of hei' customers or tJie suppliers etc. All that was found in the house was submitted to the custody'

'Fiiere are several questions arising out of this case. The widow seems to be belonging to the Brahmin community, she was described as Bodaki which meant that she was tonsured. The place whae she sold liquor also was from the area thickly populated by Bralunins and even today’s stands so. How was she allowed to do her bu5;iness by her neighbours? Was there no objection from arty one? llie business seemed to be carried on for a

long time. She had regular customers whose names and other information she refused to Supply to the ofTico-s of

he investigation dq)artment. She also had regular suppliers who supplied her large quantity of liquor which was

^.and in tlie house. Tlie widow, being Brahmin also supplied tiio customers with goat meat which was found

.’ith bottles of liquor.

In 1881 - 82 A.D. a woman belonging to tlie Paiit caste, drank liquor and in its intoxication staited

pting her daughters-in-law. One of the daughter-in-law, in disgust tried to commit suicide in the lake nearby. V he guard on dut>’ saw her. The husband, ; the father-in-law was warned to control her, the mother-in-law,

'hich he was unable to do. Hence the husband was punished with a fine of 8 annas In this case it seems that

T ■'>tT(Tirr ol'tho washer w^oman was ntM drtnktnp ot the lion.-ir i! w-as »h»i h*" rontro' >r- ii'-

id staaed beaiuig her daughters-uvlaw. Tlie husband could not control the wife and that was his otYence for

liich he was punished witii a fine.

^ One Sai I 'cslunukii, OhikkodikfU', under the intoxicalm,, committed adulteiy with Balaji Han Joglekar

>tli were m ested . Here tiie olYisnce was not tliat ol’di iiiking liquor, it was of coimnittiiig adulteiy. Balaji latei' cofilesses of

adulter>' but denies drinking liquor and charges Sai for cheating him regarding the matter.

People wei'e supeistitious and tJiere was a strong hold of evil spirits and witch craft ;ind sorcer>' on the

^ minds of people, specially those from the Konkan area. Tliere would be continuous disputes over the Vatan lands

and other property and the best way to ti ouble the opponent was to send evil spirits on him or her. It was the

govcnunent’s important duty to prevent such practices and punish the offenders. In 1774 - 75 A.D. the

government appointed two officers, vviUi a pay of Rs. 350/- p.a. and an allowance of Rs. 261 /- p.a. to punish the

offenders. In addition, two Karkoons or clerks and six soldiei s were appointed to help the officers. The>’ were to

Work in the .Ajijanvel, Suvaniadurga, Ratnagiri, Vijaydurga, Deogad and Saundal talukas. The officers were

empowered to punish the offenders witli a line from Rs. 25 - 50 /- according to the financial capacity

Wo[iien did not lack behind even in tliis field, there .vere few' who practised sorceiy. One Brahmin

woman, at Vrindavan, was accused of sending evil spirits on Mahadaji Shinde. It was proved that she was

depii xl by Himmat Bahadur diosavi, who was given shelter by Alizabahadur, son of Shamsherbahadur and

gjand-son of Bajirao-Mastani. Alizabaliadur’s shelter lead to a seiious dispute between Mahadaji Shinde and

Alizabaliadur. Tliere were several lettei s written to Alizabaliadur by Nana Phadnavis on behalf of Peshwa Savai

Madhavrao, reprimanding him in tlie m:i or. k The woman was tortured, beaten, tiie fingers of her fiands were bumt, her teetli were pulled oui. Finally,

she coniessed tlie name of Himmatbaliadur She was not spared from torture on tlie grounds of being a

woman nor of being a Bralimin woman.

In 1750 A.D. a complaint to the Peshwa was admitted tlius; tlie mother of Ramaji Patil was killed by the

Patil of Dindori, her offence was tliat she was 'dBliutali or a peison who sends evil spirits on others to trouble

Ihuu, She was killed as a punisluuent Tlie Palil’s ulfence was liuit he had killed her without (lie pennission

of (he guveninient which meant the goveninient did give pennission to kill the Bhutalis.

i / i In ! 773 - 74 A.D. Balnji ATahadco, a Kjukooii or a clerk in the Dallar, represented tliat his wife had been possessed by an evil spirit in the Konkan. He had prayed to the deit>' of his village Dewangar in Tari' Deorukh, in

Taluka Ratiiagiri tliat she may be cured within six months ajid that she had been cured accordingly within the time. He requested that inquiries miglit now be made to find out who caused the evil spirit to possess his wife.

Orclers were issued accordingly to find out and line the offender and to take steps to stop further tiouble

Here, tlie complaint is made after the wife is cured and the request to stop the trouble being caused to others in future.

Fhe following cases indicates that the women committed crimes in the field of dacoity and were warned lu restore the loot and not to trouble in tlie future. In 1752 - 53 A.D. Parwatibai Bhonsale plundered, in the

Prant of Shirole, certain persons from Prant Kudal and Prant Rajapur, who were going on a pilgrimage to

Benaras, She was censured and cirected to restore all tlie property, obtained by her, to its owners. She had to pay the oi 1 icial messenger of tlie Huzur Rs. 20 /- as MisnJa .

In tile same yeai', Yesubai Daphale was ordered that since she had plundeied Kasba Savaide, which was the private propert>’ and she did hot had nn>' right or claim over it, she had invaded the village, looted it and had captured the Patil. She had also received from the Patil Rs. 40/- as a fine, she was to restore all the propcrt>’ she had looted and release tlie Patil. Further, she should now produce the receipt of tlie propeily restored and not to cause such trouble in future ' . 'Ihis case indicates that women did commit dacoity, looted the villagers, captured not only tJie animals and cattles, but also the officers like the Patil. 71ie Patil had to pay the ransom of

Rs. 40/- alihougli it was returned by the order.

Both the ''omen v, ere just given warnings, they were not punished W'itli otlier punisliments than restoring the propeily tlie women had plundered. Pilypii,System ;

Tlicie is t\o evidaice about llie prison ttuuiageinciU (kiritig liie pie-Peshvva peiiod. Tlie rccords iivailcibk

llie punislunent of fine was more in practice tlian by iinprisonnient. Regular prison s> steni did not exist.

Some rooms in tlic foils, popularly known as \hQBcuuiMuina or \he AdabkJuiiia were resei'ved for Uie prisoners

and culprits who had committed serious crimes were sent to such forts from dift'erent places.

Treatment to the prisoners :

llie prisoners were treated according to tiieir stations in life and the nature of crime they had

committed^*'^ Persons of the lower castes and especially adultei ous women, both of higher and lower castes

w eie compelled to do hard labour on building fortresses The quantity and the quality of the ration provided

to Uie prisoners, varied according to tlieir ranks and allowance of food was regulated by vveiglit and not by

• (6!^ price

The prisoners were sometimes given leave for going home to perfonn religious ceremonies like the

It Shradhas (funeial rites) of dead parents, man iages of gi owruip daugliters and thiead ceremonies of tiieir sons;

which tlie Peshwa as tlie religious head of tlie State could not, cmiit to be neglected and were often given mone)'

to perform the obsequial rites (i^Uer-kfiya) in the jail

Due consideration was givi i to tJie prisonei ’s healtJi and if required, they were released ' Sometimes,

the relatives, tlie wife or the servants were allowed to attend them If the climate did not suit tlie health of the

nrisoners, the\' were transferred to some other place and were often supplied with the necessary things Wonieii, like men vvcie puiiit.iicu wiu. ....,-----

political prisoners, dacoits and ofYender? of immoral and other sei ious olTences

In 1773 A.D., Chimi Shindi was punished, she was given tiie work to grind the gun powder Thaki

Kondiirkarin %vas at fort Lingana in I 795 - 96 A.D. for about 10 months lliere is no record of the nature of r their off ences available but the punishment awai ded indicate that the offences were grave.

... XXX —

I 7J Reference List:

1 Bhmat Itihas Samshodhak Maridal, Quarterly,il. p. 134-35.

2. M.J.S. Vol. 20. p. 28i. Gune. Appendix. B fV'. case No. l.p.266-67 Caseno29. p.309.

3. P.D\. Vol. 1. p.156. Gune. Appendix B 1. Case No. 7-14. p. 276-294.

4. Ueslimukh. p. 225.

3. ChapekarN.G. Pune. Shake. 1855. p. 174.

6. Bhavc.p. 485. P.!)}'. Vol. II letter no. 99. p. 66.

7. P. D}'. Vol.W. letternos. 590 & 591. p. 196-197.

8. P. Dy. Vol. Vm. letter no.. 615. p. 210.

9. P. Dy. Vol. \TIi. letter no.. 614. p. 210.

10. P.D}'. Vol. \ ^ . letter no.616. p 210-11.

11. Guuc. Appendix B I\^ Case no. 105. p.363.

i „. P i ) Vol. 43. letter no. 168. p. 133.

13. P. Dy. Vol. v m letter no. 613. p 209.

14 PD>'. Vol. n. letter no. 101. p.6"

15. P.Dy. Vol. n. letter no. 102. p.67.

16. P.t>\'. Vol. n. letter no. 103. p.68.

17 P D\', Vol. U. . letttTno.104. p.68.

17S IS. IMX. Vol. \Tn. letter no IS. p. 108.

Iv. P. Dy. Vol. n. letter no.100. p.66.

20. P. Dy Vol. Vm letterno. 919. p.l08.

21. P.D>'. Vol.I. letter no.370.p.214.

22. Gune. Appendix B rV’. letterno. 97. p.362. P. Dy. Vol. VJI. letter no.913

P.Dy. Vol. n. p. 211.

23. Bhave p.288.

24. P.S.A.P. letterno. 128.'

I 25. ^iaJiatasJumcJui Fatmnip hihas. Bombay 1939. letter no.216. p.211.

26. Gune. Appendix B IV. Case no,94 p.362.

27. Gune. Appendix B rV’. Case no p.362

28. Gune Appendix B IV. Case no. 43. p.350.

29. P. Dy. Vol. Vni. letter no. 886. p.86.

30. Gune. Appendix B IV. Case no.45. p.351.

31. Gune Appendix B IV. C:i e no. 47. p.351.

32. Gune Appendix B rV, Case no.49. p.352.

33. P. Dy. Vol. Vffl. letter no.888. p.87.

34. Dy. Vol. \in . Idler'..889. p.87. 35, P. Dy. Vol. VIII. letter no. 892, p.88-S9.

.^6, P. D)'. Vol. Vni. letter 110.891. p.88.

.^7 Gune Appendix B F\^. Case no. 50. p..^,‘'2. y 38. Gune Ap]>ijndix B IV Case no 55. p.353.

39. Gune Appendix B rV\ Case no. 115. p.366.

40 P Dy. Vol.Vn. lettei'no‘^''2. p.197. Gune Appendix B IV. Case no. 65. p.356.

4! Gune Appendix B rV’. Case no.66. p.357.

42. Gune .Appendix B r\/. Case no. 68. p.357.

43. P. D>'. Vol. I. letter no.3II. p. 185.

44. P. D>'. Vol. I. lettei-no.3I7. p.I87.

45. P. Dy. Vol. VU.. letter no.887. p.86-87.

16. Avalaskar S. V. Nagaon- Aitihnsik vn Samajik Jivan (k^kliale Pxonomics Institute Poona. 1962.. p.92.

, 47. A.L.S. Vol. 4. p.296. i 48 P. D. Vol. 1. p.l45.

49. P. Dy. Vol. Vni. letter no.!^U9. p. 100.

50 Bhave. p.366.

Avnl-askdr S.W Nagaon-A/lhikva Sa/fiajikJivciJi. Gokhale,Economics In,stiluLe. Pune. 1962. p.9

52. P. Dy. \ ’ol. VTII. letter no.614. p.210, 53. Bhavc. p.269.

34. h.h^kiralfu Dqflar Runuil Vols..v 1 922-28. Run ml 3. p.80-81.

V\ P. D. Vol. 43. p.32.

5^. P. D>'. Vol. vm . letter no.924. p.H 1.

V7. P. D>. Vol. I. letterno.321. p.189.

.58. edited. Wad G.C. SluiJw Rojidslii, paii 1, p. 118.

P. Dy Vol. n. letters nos. 120, 123. Vol. Vll.. letters nos.638, 640, 642. Vol. VIE. letter nos. 967, 994.

60 P. D>'.Vol.W. . letternos.6i4-616. Vol. VIE. letter nos. 920, 929.

61. P. Vol.n. letter nos.S4, 100, 1 22. Vol. W letter nos. 614 - 617, 638, 640 -642.

Vol. VIII. letter nos. 891, 912, 928 and 979.

62. P. Oy.Vol.lT. letter no.l23. Vol.VlE. letter nos.. 973 - 74^ 977, 980 & 982.

63 P. D>-. Vol. Vni. letter no. 967, 976.

64. P. D>. Vol. v m letter n. .^,779, 992.

65. P. D>'. \'-l. I. letter no 336. Vol. V. letter no. 220. Vol. VUI. Icttei'nos. 971, 990.

66. Ai)rasidhaKagadRumalNo. 2. Deshniukh. p. 228.

67. .'\prasidha Kagad Rnmai Nn. 91. Deslmiukh. p. 228. LEGAL RIGHTS

A riglit is defined by Austin, the trunous jurist, as ':i faculty which lesides in a determinate part)’ or

pailKs, by virtue of :i given law and which avails against a party or parties othei' than the i)arty or parties in whom

I esides"

Salmond, another famous jurist, detmes a rigtit as “a rigfit is an interest recognised and protected by a rule

of right. It is an interest, respect for which is a duty, and the disregard of which is a UTong”.

Tlie dictionaiy states the meaning of a right as, a power of free action, a privilege, an interest in an object,

a claim to a thing. Rights and duties are obverse and reverse of same coin; botii are inter-related; tiiere can be no

right without a duty and no duty without a right. But an Indian woman was always told about her duties upteem

^ tii^ies; duly as a devoted and loyal wife (PaihrcUa) and a good mother (Surmta). Nothing was said about her

nglit or rights.

A i:> o p n o N :

Sir Hairy Maine observed that, “'fhe whole law' of adoption is evolved around two texts; first of Manu,

which ays th;<' boy equal by caste, whom his father or mother affectionately gives, conlnming the git^ with a

libation of water, in times of distres> io a man as liis son, must be considered as an adopted son ’.

'ilie second by Vashistha, which furthei' adds that only son should neither be given, nor accepted,

since he must remain to continue the line of his ancestor; and if ailer adoption, a legitimate, natural son is bom to

tlie adoptive [lai'ents, tlien the adoptive son would obtain a fourth share”. An adopted son shall never take Uie

!amily name and estate of his natural father, 'fhe funeral cfike follow ■ the adoptive family, tlie funeral otferings

of him who gives the son in adoption cease as far as that son is concerned

Mann’s text further implies that; only a father and mother can give a boy in adoption; the donee (the

adoptive father ) must t)c in distress on account of sonlessness; and the boy must be ot the same class.

I / transplantation of a son from the family in which he is bom into another family by gitl made by his natural

parents to the adopting parents, The adopted son is ttien taken as being bom into the family and he acquires

- riglits, duties and status in tlie new family. His ties witli tiie old family becomes sevei ed. Adoption is the civil

death in the natural family and the legal birth in tlie adoptive family.

It was believed tiiat a man wins the world, tluougli a son’s son he obtains inunoilality but tluougli his

son’s gi and sons he gains tlie world of the son. As a son saves tlie fatlier from tlie hell called Put, he was called

Futtra, i.e. tlie saviour from Put. 'lliese texts created natural feelings into the minds of parties to beget a son.

Adoption is tlie admission of a stranger by birth, to the privileges of a child by a legally recognised form

^ ol alFiliation. The effect of adoption was to create legal relation of father and son, just as a person adopted was

'y bom of the blood of the adoptive father in a lawful marriage. The adoptive son took the name of his adoptive

fatJiei' and vvtis bound to perfomi his adoptive fatlier’s religious duties.

Adoption is not recognised by tlie Mohammedan Law nor by tiie English or Ltie Parsi Law It is

recognised by liuidu Law only. Man iage and sonship constitute some of Lhe Unique Chapters in tlie lUera legLs

of .'\ncient Hindu Law which recognises twelve kinds of sons of which there were five kinds which could be

adopted.

^ AltJiough a daughtei' was not adopted during (he pei iod of study, Kanyadaan and adoption of a son stand

on tl'.o same tV*oting. Both of them are gifted, i.e. a daughter in Kanyadaan and a son or Putra, in adoption, arc

given as a gift for religious and ,‘^ecular purpose and thei efore same consideration should be applied to tJie gill of

a son and a daughtCT. In botli tlie cases, the daugliter and die son go into anotlier family, their luirne and evai their

gotra changes. But legally there was one important difterence; in adoption, the giver and the receiver of the son

must be competent enough according to the Shashtras. Even a slightest deficiency in this competency would

ierid 111 the ;uiopiion being cancelled e.g. Peshwa Savai .Madhaviao. the i)osthunKnis son of Peshwa NHiayanntix

2 7 Oot»:*L*or A.L>. with'.^ut lt?nvinK n hoir. lie about 22 ’vcnra oUi U was (Icoidccl ihnl vvKkvvv, Vijshodaluu should adopt'a son. Chiimiaji, the ])ostlunnuu^> son of Ragliunath Bajirao aiid .Xiiaiidibcu,

bom on 30^‘ March 1784 A.D. was adopted and tJit- Danak\id}uvi or the actual cereinony was pcrfonned on

May 1796 A.D. Raghunath Bajirao, was by relation, paternal uncle of Naraymirao. hence Chininaji cousin

Narayjuiiau.

Yashodabai was the daughter-in-law of Narayanrao and hence niece-in-iaw of Chimnaji. By adopting

Chinuiaji, the relation of Chiinnaji would be lowered by a degi ee, he would be a son. This kind of adoption did

not fvi in an>' Shastra, in realit>-this was a case of adoption of political convenience. Nana Phadnavis had wished

to counter plan against the plan of Bajirao II, elder brothei" of Chininaji, who was the direct heir to Oie

Peshwaship and who naturally had refused his consent to the adoption. Nana wished to keq) the powers in his

► own hands 2ind hence needed a puppet on tlie seat. Chiinnaji suited his puipose well. Later, Bajirau U became

Peshwa and the adoption of Chiinnaji was cancelled While in Kanyadaan, llie competency of tl\e giver nor

that ot the receiver does not matter. Lt' the giver was not competent, there was somebody else to give tlie

daughter, i.e. the brother, uncle, eic. Marriage was a sacrament, once a marriage, it was always a marriage.

Hence once tJie ceremonies were completed it did not niatter whether the groom was competent or not to receive

thegit\ of the bride,

Tlie main object of adoption was to continue tlie family line because according to the Shasti as, those who

did not have a son would not t1nd a place in the heaven. Therefore it was a pious duty of every Hindu to have a

son if he did not beget a natural son he could fulfil this obligation by adopting a son. Thus, the adopted son

would continue the family line and perfonn all tlie religious ceremonies for the deceased ancestors. Only a son

could do tliis dut>' and hence, no daugliter was adopted.

The above mention«i reason was also applied to not adopting an only son for he was required in his

natural family to continue tJie family line. Chatrapati Shaliu had wished to adopt Fatehsingli Bhonsaie of

Aklcalkot but ’"atehsingh was an only heir and could not be adopted Gopikabai and Peshwa Nanasaheb had five

1a 1 soil-;. Lwo died in inffinc>’, Vishvvasrao on Uic battle-fidds o' I’nnipat, Peshwa MadliavTao at an early age of 28

years- and Pe-hvva Narayiinra-.-) wa? assassinated. Ihei e is no record of 5iny daughter being adopted.

.'\nandibai, wife of Ragli^natlu ao Bajirao, gave biith to two sons, Bhaskar on 26 February 1762 A.D. and

Vinayak on 15 August 1764 A .D , both died in infancy A daugliter, Durga alias Godubai was bom on

11 Decenibo' 1765 A.D., hence R; Jiunatlirao felt he would not beget sons of his own. Therefore he adopted a

tlu ec and half yeais old son of Gopalrao Bhuskute on 19'^ April 1768 A.D. He was called .'\mrutrao. .^andibai

does not seem to object to this adoption; even if she had, no heed would have been paid. Tlie husband could

IterTbrm the religious cesrenionies (whatsoever) without the consent of his wife. On 10* Januarj', 1775 A.D.

\na:idibai g;.ve biitli to a son, at Dhai-, and he ua;-; called Bajirao U and Chiniajiappa, on 30^‘ March 1784 A.D.

^ipa was the posthumous, son, Raghunathrao died on 11* December 1783 A.D.

WitJi Ragliunatlirao’s two natural sons. Aiiirulrao’s claim was set aside and Bajirao II succeeded to the

Peshwa scat on Deceinber 1796 A.D. This indicates that if, aftei- ^he adoption, a natural son was bom, he

would get preference over the adopted son. Tlie adoptive son would inherit a fourth share in tlie adoptive

father’.' propert}'. However, the adoption did not become invalid if sub ;uently r' natural son was bom. lliis

L'ltuid t _ the r^.ison the adoptive mothers consented the adoption.

After the defeat at Ghodape, in 1768 A.D., Raghunathrao had demanded from Peshwa Madhavrao

jiroperty worth Rs. 2 lacks and one fort in Amrutrao’s name. Madhavrao had declined this offer on the grounds

that Amiiirrao belonged to mother gotra . 'Ihis indicates that the pennission of tlie Peshwa was necessair for

adoption.

Chati apati Sambhaji of Kolliapur died in 1760 A.D. He had seven wives but no .son. His fourth wife,

^ 'ss5

l aier, Kusal>ai deiivei ed a daughter but Jijabai, his another senior widow declared that a son was bom. Tlie 'i."cict v\ out soon anas;i]ieb docided Id

abolish the seat by joining the Satara seat.

Tlic defeat at PanipaL v;as not sui vived by the Peshvva and on 27^‘ April 1762 A.D. Jijabai met, Peihvva

Madliavrao at Jejuri, and had to take the pennission to adopt

Atlei die deatli of hei' son Malojiiao, /Uiilyabai Holkar, had paid Rs. 25 lacks to the Pes! vva for the

pennission to adopt her grand-sbn Natliyaba, son of hcT daugtita, Muktabai. She did not adopt him (

.^rinitrao, her natural sons and the entire family wei e -i imprisonment with Anandibai till her death and it

secrTis she hnd good relationship vviUi her adopted son. When Raghnnathrao died, the funeral rites for first 10

^days were perf'^nned by Anuiitrao and the later ones were perfomied b>' Bajirao A lliis indicates that the

adoptive son had an equal riglit to perform the funeral rites along with the natural son.

Atler adoption, the adoj)tive niotlier’s position did not change. Jijabai Bhonsaie of Kolhapur was one of

the seven wives of Sanibhaji U. She was maiTied to him in 1726 A.D. and in 1740 A.D. he gave her the authorit)'

to rule. Iheie is no record as to the reasons for it. ScUiibhaji died on 20 Decembei' 17ou A.D. at the age of 62

yejirs. His fourth wife Kusabai was then pregrumt, she gave birtli to a dauglitei'. Jijabai adopted a 6 yeeirs old son

on 22 ”'^ September 1762 A.D. On 27 Septembei' of tJie same year, his thread ceremony was perfomied and he

was coronated. The Peshwa had a desire to join tlie Kolhapur State to that of Satara but Jijabai did not agree to

ii. She mied for her minor son for 12 years till her death on 17* December 1773 A.D

r'aiyal)ai Bhon.vaIe o]']\';i 'nir was the wife of Iwigliuji I, AllhougJi detailed infoniiation about her was no!

available, some references in the Peshwa Dallar indicate that she was an influential personalit)'. .^ler tlie cmel

assassination o f Peshwa Narayanrao, the care taking CioveniiTient called Barbluii needed her help in

-■■ti engthcning tlieii forcet. in the noith ;aid had requested her to bring otliei' noblemen to their sivle. in tiiese

poiitic;.; iiiatler,: liei son R;. .i ji 11 uas a iimiiiiiai liead and it was her support that was asked ioi ITicre was another c.i c of Sagunabai Nimbalkai', wife of Mudlioji, who died witliout a natural son but

had adopted a son, Maloj'- o. Sagunabai was about 40 years of age when she became a widow but had carried

•Ml llie auniinisUation of tlie State Phaltan, widi tlie help of Malojirao. Raghunatiu ao, brother of the Peshwa,

declared Sonuaji Naik, as tlie legal and valid heir and sent Sonuaji with some force to capture tlie state.

Sagimabai had no oiough forces to protect her and hence had f o surrender her state to Somraji who later took the

possession. Sagunabai was driven out forcibly by the forces and had to take shelter at Valeghate Terdhoki near

Varhad. Narsinha Konher was her representative('FciA;7) at the Peshwa court in Pune. He helped her in presenting

her complaint at the Court.

RaiiishasU i Prabhune, tJie clMef Judge, investigated the matter and decided that if an oath in tJie temple of

ejuri be taken about tlie adoption, it would be consido; ed valid. Narsinghi ao Konher, took such oath and stated T hat he was prescait wlien Malojirao wa. adopted. ITiis oath was taken in the presence of Ramshastii, who was

onvinced of tlie validity of the original adoption. Peshwa Madhavrao presented her presents worth one lacks as a

ign of respect and she returned to the Jagir of Phaltan state which was now in the name of Malojirao.

In 1 776 A.D., the Peshwa had sent mi!itar>’ forces to Karnataka and Malojirao was Vvith the forces of

laiipant Phadake. On ! November of the same year, Malojirao died of plague and his secretary Sadashiv

li^iirao, had previously informed the matters to Sagunabai and taken her permission to adopt a son. A boy

ailed Janojirao was brought in the campaign and was adopted by Malojirao, before his death. Tlie Peshwa too

(inctioned tliis adoption and transfened the Jatiagir from Malojirao to Janojirao. Sagunabai administered tiie

ITairs of the state L^ll Janojirao grew up to take over and then retired fro... die pub'': life. She was addressed as

[

liat if one adopted son was not able to give a male heir there would be anotlier for adoption but the family line

nust continue. WlietJier tiie clTorts behind it were of u capable wonvdi-i did not matter, iier contribution was iiol reRarded. Bajirao II, son of Anaiidibai aiid Ragliunath Bajirao, die last Peshvva, was hiniself a natural son of his

parents. He came to the Peshvva seat on ^ December 1796 A.D. He had been married 5 times before he became

Peshwa, once before he reached Vithur and after the Peshwa seat was abolislied and 5 times after he had resided

Vithui, total 11 niairiages Also, he had nuuiied according to Katyar foim, i.e. a marriage by proxy, to

RadlKi’^ ’i, daughter of Lala Pardeshi, at VitJiur. Bajirao had inan>’ children, but only two daugliters, Yogabai,

boni when he was 68 yccirs and i 1.. uniabai, bom when he was 72 years, survived him.

Hence, on 7^ June 1827 A.D. he adopted a son, Dhundiraj, alias Nanasaheb II, son of Govind Mahadec)

Niirayan Bhai. Nanasaheb’s younger brother, Gangadharrao alias Balasaheb and a paternal cousin. Sadashivrao

alia.': Da ’asalieb weie also ad ;)(ed, VvilIi an object tliat in case one of tliern dies, the other may continue tlie line.

“At tiiat time Peshwaship 1, ' already been abolished. Later, Saibai, 10^' wife of Bajirao had adopted the grand­

son of Dwmkabai, daughter of Chimnaji Ragliunatli, his brother. The adopted child was Laxman Chitnnaji

1 Thatte, and the adoption took place in 1881 A.D. The adoption of three sons shows the strong desire for a male

child

Ilie husband could adopt a son without the consent of the wife is seen from the example of Anandibai.

Hie wife was needed to assist iin the religion.-; ceremony of adoption. Without her, the husband could perfonri

tliciu v\ itli a help of a betelnut in her place. But tiie wife coiil^l not do so. Chatrapati Shaliu had no heir, his wife,

Sagunabai had wished to adopt Ragjiuji 11 but Sakwarbai, his senior wife opposed to it. She wished to adopt a son

of her choice, Shahu had opposed to both of them, and died witliont adopting a son. Tarabai, Shahu's paternal

aunt, had suggested her grandson, son of her son Shivaji D, who was witli his sister Daryabai Ninibalkar in

secrecy, for fear of his life, at Pangaon.

Since Ranu aja was tlie direct ucscendent of Shivaji, there was no opposition to the adoption. Messengers

vvere sent by the Peshwa Nanasaheb to Pjuigaon to honourably bring tlie heir to Satara. Daryabai accompanied

him to the alien place. Ramraja felt he should honour his sister by presenting Hct with some lands as was the

cu^ioiri of the day. He wished to express his gi atitude in tJiis way. But the Peshwa thought her a formidable person, v\ho could gain importance UirougJi Lhc new Chatjapati. He neglected her. Later, the Peshwa made

nrTan?crrients to send her back to Pangaon, honouring her vvitli presents of jevve.ieiy and clothes, as was the

custom I’Ut Dai-yabai was aware •. her status and the depeiidence of her brotiier Raniraja, wiio thougli coronated,

^he Chatrapati was poweriess. even to grant a small Jagir to his sister. She refused all tlie honour and returned

home to disappear into anonymity Her case indicates tliat even a woman who was like a motliei' before

adoption, seemed to be (' fonnidable character to the Peshwa so much so, that he feared she might gain

importance.

niie sanction had to be tJiken from the State autliorities. The officers took some fees to grant tiieir

:;aiiction. Tliere was a complaint to Aliilyabai Holkar, from a widow, that the officer had ordered the widow, to

pay a fee of 3 lacks to give permission to adoption. Ahilyabai made inquiries, suspended the officer and gave her

(12) permission to adopt. Shefurther presented the child with ornaments and clothes .

M er tiie deatii of her father-in-law, Malhan ao Holkar, in 1766 A.D.; Subhedari of Indore was granted

to Malerao, son of Kliandeiao and .Aiiilyabai, Malerao died on 23^^ March 1767 A.D. A! iyabai continued

the Subhedari on the name of her ^ n till her death on 13 August 1795 A.D. Howeva-, she had paid Rs. 25 lacks

to the Peshwa and obtained permission to adopt htr grand-son Nathyaba, son of her daughter Muktabai.

Maliadaji Shinde had reconuneiided tlie i.^iTriission. Natliyaba died in 1790 A.D., leaving no heir, at tlie tender

age of 22 years. Tukoji Holkar, son of Janoji Holkar, succeeded her altliough there was no record avalJ.ible that

the actual religious ceremony of adoption was peiformed.

llie widow adopted a son not for haself but for her deceased husband and alter tiis expressed wish to

adopt a son on the death bed. In doing so, she acted simply as his agent. Mahadaji Shinde had married 9 times

bii !uid no son. He adopted Daulatrao, son of Anandrao and nephew of Mahadaji. Laxmibai, wife of Mahadaji

'^ad opposed to uiis adoption. DaulaU ao, vvlio w as 15/16 yeai s dien, h.u; promised to look aitei' tlie famiiy. "Hie

adoption took place in 1794 A.D. bLMiiibai, Bhaeiralhibai, Yiuiiunabai the Uii ee widows of Miiliaclaji, ajid tlie rest oi the family lived at

iJjjain. VVlien Daulalrao did not fulfil his protnise, the Shinde widows carne to Pune to complain to the Peshwa.

ilii»siii;)llui)Hi became liiendiy with nfuilalrao, the relations were opposed by tlie othei's two. Tlie widows

^Jciiuiiidcd pioviuces worth 10 lacks for their maintenance. Daulatrao lefused tlie demands Saijerao Ghatge, the

Diwan ajid fatlier-in-law of Daulatrao drove away the widows from their tents, and inflicted floggings. Tlie

w!- ssing soldiers revolted and took the side of the widows. Their faithful servants Jivaji Bakshi and Devji

Gavali were captared. Later, both of tlie Sardai s wa e released. Laxmib ii and Yamunabai raised their own amiy

and fought against Daulatrao and defeated him. He returned tlieir omamoits and other property to Peshwa

JBajirao to be retun ed to tliem which the widows refused to accq)L TIk ostablisb^'d tiieir own rule in Gwalior,

their lu.iiily Capital

Ihe case of Shinde wives is called as the revolt; no doubt it w'as the revolt, for the legal rights. Laxmibai

did not meekly accept the situation. She was tlie senior wife of Maliadaji Shinde and during his life-time had

lived like a Queai. No so ;icr her husband died, she and her whole family w a e left to tlie mercy of the adopted

son, Daulatrao. llie only reason for this pitiable condition was that the wife had no right in her husband’s

p!opeily. Whatever a man acquired or inliei’ited was passed on to his son or sons. During the lile-time he could

dispose-iiie property or make arrangements for the wife but she had no right as sucii on the property ul her

husband. Tlie widow was lefl to the merc7 of her husband's male heirs, i.e. sons; the son or tlie sons, either

lafural or adopted.

If a mari had no natural son, he would eitlier adopt a son during his life-time or leave instiuctions to adopt

a son. Chatrapati Shaliu had lef^ specific instiiictions that a son from Satara family should not be adopted

Adopting a son for the lelip’ous merit; for a deceased husband was thus left to the widow. Tliis v\’as one

^ot her duties as a widow and it cannot be called a n;'Jit: foi riglit means some interest, privilege, a claim oi a

thing, mi interest in

iJien he would t;ike ch.'uge of al- lliat was her husbands. A widow would be digging her own giave, because by

187 adopting a son, it. meant she would be giving up hcT claim in hei' husband’s property, altliough she wa^i a mere

custodian of it during her lifetime.

Laxmibai and Yamunabai revolted against this injustice; tlieir right in their husband’s property. But, they

had to pay a very heavy price, they fought against Daulatrao for four years. The Kolhapur Chatrapati, nor the

th Pe.Miwa nor Nana Phadnavis openly took their side. All of them neutrally watched the fun. On 14 January 1800

A.D. as tliey had camped near Tulapur, an attempt to kill them was in action. Yamunabai was seriously injured;

one of the persons assaulting was killed and another was arrested. He disclosed the name of the person planned to

kill; i 0 Sarjerao Ghatge, Diwan and fathei'-in-law of Daulatrao >

Tills revolt is recorded in liistory as tlie first of its kind; women’s first attempt to claim their l^al riglits.

It was the sign of their awareness of their legal rights.

INHERITANCE :

In patriarchal Indian society, a son was iind is always preferred to a daughter because he would continue

the family name and was entitled to pay oblations to the manes. In the Joint Family Coparcenary propaty, he

would be an equal sharer, tiie moment he was bom. It was understood that a daugliter would be married and

would pemianentiy leave her natal home; she would flourished and bring prosperity to her marital home. She

was tliouglit to be tiie property of some sLi anger i.e. her husband. Her pai ents were to be her custodians till she

was married. This was reflecte4 in everything done for her and the restrictions on her upbringing

.Marriage was obligatory for her and it was regarded that she must be rid off as soon as possible and child

niaiTiages or prepubeity mairiages came in vogue. Eight years was an ideal age to get her married which caiTie

down to years; its excess resulting ; nuuriages of babes-in-anns. She would be too young to consent and

her consent was not nece-ssai^. Her paraits an angod her marriiige and in tlie joint family system, her in-laws took

care o f h e r and the chiidrai bom subse(]ueiitly. I Hiere was a custom of inviting her for few days and giving her some presents on return to iia marital

home. .Mler the deaths of her parents ; her brother would invite her as a formality, as a custom. It was totally letl

to the wishes and pleasures of her sister-in-law, (the brother’s wife) and tlie next mistress of her natal home. In

^one song, she compare^: her brother to tl\e rains ailer the lunar mansion Poorva; he has drained all his affection

for the sister, now that he is fathjr of daugliters and has forgotten tJie sister

Marriage was and is a great 'r;insition in a woman’s life; her family name (surname); her gotra; everything

changes after the marriage. Her guardianship also gets transferred from the fatlier to her husband however minor

he may be. She lives in her marital honit .nd leaves it only after deatli. Wliile an'anging her marriage, preference

was given to a large family, su that tlie members would support her in her needs. Also; in such a lar^,c family

.^he catainly would not strave even if she had to work hard. This support would be in fonn of maintenance; she

would have to work hard anywhere and would get the basic necessities but not as a right. It was the obligation of

the joint family system to maintain its members; women, children, aged members, sick, widows, all were the

family’s dependants. Yet, she would be ashamed to return to her natal home for any help, however rich it would

be, for she would be aware tfiat she had no riglit over her natal home after the marriage.

Daughter’s Ritfht of Inlieritance :

Tliere is an old saying Uiat a son, a wife and a slave can own no property independently of the fatlier; the

husband and the master The daughter is obviously intc .;ied to be included here under the son. There is no

doubt that tliere was a general prejudice against property devolving upon foiiale heirs by inheritance, the

daugiii cr fonnedno exception. She \\as often expected to increase the assets of her father’s iamily by bringing in

a bride-price; that she should get a share in and decrease tlie corpus of her natal property would have appeared

preposterous. Tlie veiy conce{)t of Sti idlum shows that vvonion could nonnally get property only by way of gifts from

I their relatives at or subsequent to their marriage. There was no possibility of their acquiring any estate by

iiilierilance. y .Ajiiong the females heirs, the brotiierless daughter was the first to succeed in establishing her right of

inheritance; but then; the father always adopted a son.

As a daughter, a woman had no legal status in hei' natal family. Tlie years that she spent there, however

few, before ho” marriage were spent like in a waiting loom, aiLxious for the marriage train to arrive. Marriage

was obligatory; and every girl was certaii y maiTied; when and to whom could not be answered. She was a guest

in tiic natal family; her short stay was made t)ie happiest one; she received equal treatment witli her broUicr in the

iipbringing. As a guest, she belonged to a stranger, her husband, though not defined. She was her husband’s

propaty; her parents were her custodians till her marriage; and therefore she had no legal status or share in tlie

natal propeity.

An unmarried daugliter, (there is no record of any unmarried daughter during the period under study)

could, at Uie mor!. claim from the patrimony, expenses required for her marriage.

A dauglitei- was, however, entitled to enjoy whatever was confeired on her by her father in his life time, in

form of gifts, liiese presents included cash and kind; e.g. Anutai Ghorpade, (1V i. i - 1784 A.D.) daughter of

tJie first Peshwa, Balaji Vishvx jnatli, was married to Vyankatrao Ghorpade, son of Sachiv (Secretary’) Naro

Mahadeo Ghorpade in 1719 A.D. (Naro Mahadeo was Sachiv of Kolhapur Chatrapati). Naro Mahadeo in his

childhood had worked in the horses stables, as footman, of Santaji Ghoipade and had earned promotion of being

Kaibhari of Ghorpade and Sachiv of Kolhapur Chatrapati. Out of gi atitude and loyalty towards his master; Naro

Mahadeo iransfeired his fami’_ name of Joshi to Ghorpade.

^ .-Mler liie deatli of Naro Maliadeo, neiUiei' the Chati apati of Kolhapur nor the son of Santaji, continued the

posts of Sachiv and Karbhari witli Vyankatrao, thus leaving only Ichalkamji State as Inani in tlie family.

190 Ill 1722 A.D., Peshvva Bajirao I built a house for his sister in Pune and some gardais and Mauje Vadgaon

Tail' Chak;in were given to her, as Inam, so tliat she could slay near her natal Peshwa iamily.

Alter the death of her husband, Chati apati Shaliu of Satara granted her the whole of/\zara and 31 villages.

Sue v^ onld accompany tliePeslnva in all the militaiy campait, is and in 1766 A.D. received an allowance (Tainat) for a palanquin; (Palanquin, Rs; 1,100/- for its maintenance Rs. 150/- and Rs. 350/- for clothes). Later, she

eceive i \\\c Mamalat ( a ri^it to cor kict business) of the lai ge district of Dharwar.

Then, in tJie case of'he (Impostei;) of Sadashivrao Bhau, she took the side of the Imposter, jelieving him to be true. He was subsequently executed and she had to face the wrath of the Peshwa, who

'hereby' decided to confiscate all her estates.

Peshwa administration was in tlie hands of Nana Phadnavis and Sakliarambapu Bokil; so Anubai had to

Axite to Nfina Phadnavis and begged him to save her property. Her old age and recommendations Irom Sardai'

>atwai dhan saved her estates beirjig confiscated

Anubai was Ihe daugliter of Peshwa Balaji Vishwanaui, sister of Peshwa Bajirao I; daughter-in-law of

>achiv Naro Mahadeo Ghorpade; paternal aunt of Peshwa Nanasalieb. She had very good relations witJi

-■'hatrapati Shaha of Satara, who 'granted her large Inams, yet, in her old age she had to beg Nana Phadnavis to

ave her estates. It was not just her misfortune but it could have been her ineptitude that was responsible to this

ondition. Her case reflects that her marital family was in the service of Kolhapur Chatrapati and ho" natal

eiations gave her large estates from liie Satara Chatrapati; but since her husband nor her son were competent

nougli to maintain them, she had to live on the support of tiie Peshwas which was pemiaii nt. However rich or

ovverful the natal family may be it was not the true support to a woman.

On the other hand, her sister, Bhiubai was married to the irioneN'-lender, Savkai' Naik Joshi of Baramati.

tcf Brother-in-law, with a desire to be the Pe.sliwa, competed but never succeeded. Bhiubai seems never to be in

eed of hei' natal family support Anotho' example of such gills, which wei e also called Choli-Banaadi or Sadi-Choli Vatan is that oi

inded jji pert’,' I 'inggiveii to a woman for liei bare necessities; it was her Stridlian and after hei' death, it passed

n lo her female heirs, Uiis could be specilkally expressed in the deed/document. Bhascote and Silcote foils near

vringaiore, worth Rs. 5 lacks income vveie gianted to Deqinbai ( sister-in-law of Chatiapati Shivaji); furtlier

rohibiting hei' male heirs to divide and share the i)roj)eity; stating tliat afler her death it should pass on to her

emale h ’irs for tlieir private expaises ” .

Only patrihneal desci .i was recognised; a distant DaycuJa (male heir) possessed stronger claims to inherit

he property tlian evoi one’s son-in-law or a Dauhitra (one's daughter’s son). The society was averse to

accession of the property of the descendants from female line. The fact is attested by the disapproval in the

ollowing case.

In 1764 - 65 A.D., certain Deshpande of Pargana Hukkeri, having no issue, adopted persons outside the

v^atan family, as the sons, against |he wishes of the Bhaubands or the male family relatives. Shri Shankaracharya,

Jhatrapati of Kolhapur, and subsequently the Peshwa, disallowed the claims of the adopted son tu succeed to the

V’atan. It was stated in the Sanad that ihe adoption of a daughta-’s son was unauthorised

In anotJier case, in 1777 -’7S A.D Kashinatli Dingie of Pandliaipur, died witliout an issue. His widow h- .i.i'.>()ted a son from anotiiei' Gotra without consulting tlie male relatives. On tlieir complaining to tiie

(jovcnunent, tlie propeit>' ajul the house of l])c deceased were ordei ed to be attached

(rovemnient gave aid to tlie children of the men in its services; this aid was called Balparveshi although

HI practice it included all tlie dependants of the deceased. If the deceased had a son, he was granted tlie hereditaiy

'/atr*n and evai the post tlie father held. WTien Shankaraji Narayan Sachiv died, Chatrapati Shaliu gi iuiled the

Sachiv post to his one year old son and tlie widowed mother Yesubai managed tlie administration of tlie post^'"’'.

If this aid was discontinued for an>’ reason, it could be recontinued on application by tlie heirs If tlie iOn u ;; "linor, the aid would be jjrovided till he attained niajority; Uie Government would jirovide food, clotlies

192 aiid ionie cash till tlie son would join his deceased iaUitT’s post. Hovveva-, nowhere is a daugiito- recorded as heir to the propert\’ of her latlier. Evc" in the absence of a brother, she did not inherit for the widowed mother or

in his life time, the fatlier would always adopt a son. f In the joint family set-up, the immovable propeny was not gifted to a daughter, the reason could be, the daugtiter, atlei' her marriage, would usually go away to a different village or town to live witli her husband. She would be tlierefore an absentee landlord. She would not materially benefit by a share in the lands of her natal

family. It was not however a hard and fast rule. It has further to be admitted that soon alia- her maniage, the

centre of interest and aiTection of the dauglitfT naturally shifts to her new home. She becomes more and more

immersed in her own fainily and children

K During Uie life lime, Uie fatho' or Uie brother would donate lands for her maintenance. Balabai Shitole, daugliter of Mahadaji Shinde, was granted a village wortli Rs. 1,000/- income pei' aiuium, as her Sadi-choli vataii

Furthei, the deed says that no body should cause her any trouble in its enjoyment

Bhavanibai, was the daughter of Chatrapati Sambhaji and Yesubai, bom on 4/9/1678 A.D. She was nfan ied to Shankaraji, son of Harjiraje Maliadik. \Vhei\ Shaliu, her younger brotlier returned to Maliarashlra and

laiined his tlirone, he grmited hei' the Sard^^shmuklii of village Tarale and vatan of Naudgauda

Govind Sunder Deshpande, Kangod, Balapur, in his life time had given his daughter Rs. 300/- per aimuni as Choli-Bangadi, for her necessities. After the death of Govind Deshpande, his son Krishnaji, had stopped it. A complaint was made to Janoji Bhonsale, Senasaliet), on 31^^ July 1755 A.D. by Veda.'^hnnra Sampanna

Vusudeobaba Dixit. It was ordered to I'Ci isluiaji Govind to continue the amount

Govindrno Chitnis writes to the Peshwa that Queen Sakwarbai,(wife of Chatrapati Shaliu) is arLxious to

^;;ve ctHaifi Saranjams granted to Hct daugiiter Gnjrabai ajid hei' iiusband Bande and requests the Peslnva to

: sue orders to tiiat effect

193 wife aitlioug}] was called Arc^iiojigini or tlie better half of the husband, in practice, she did not possess aity legal status as such.

Widow Kaveribai, w’as married to Chinuiaji, son of Ragliunath Bajirao, on 20^ May 1812 A.D. Chinmaji tvas piven in adoption to Yashodabai, widow of Peshwa Savai Madhavrao, but later the adoption was cancelled on the grounds tliat he was patenia! uncle of her husband (Savai Madhavrao) and hence not qualified according to the Shastras.

Chiinnaji wa* survived by Kaveribai and a nine years old daugliter, Uie Englii', tlierefore did not continue her pension. Chimnaji died on 30 1832 A.D. and had left propert)' worth Rs. 7/8 lacks, which was attached by the English. Kaveribai had applied many' times to tlie Govamor General at Calcutta but was not granted the

V ■ I f'O) pension nor tiie property .

■ \ vast majority of widows ti ed to get tlieir husband’s share, if not directly as their heirs; at least

.ndirectly as tlie guardifins of their minor sons.

Vhnntenance :

K The doctrine of maintenance has always been favoured by Hindu jurisprudence. They speak of and insist

apon tlie maintenance and support of various members of the family and lay down a number of beneficent

injunctions. Tliey diaw a distinction between the dependants and lay down in mandatory tone the rule that it is

lie dut)' of a man to support his wife, aged pJirents and mir; r childien. In the case of otha" dependants, the

njunctions are only perceptive. A Hindu is under an obligation to maintain his wife, his minor sons, liis

inmaiTied daugliters and his agcd^parents, whetliei' he possesses any property or not. Tlie obligation to maintain

depeiulaiits is personal in chui acter and arises iloin tiie vcit existence of tJie relationship betvveen liie

)artics.

194 Maintenance may be defined in a comprehensive manner lyid includes provisions for food, clolliing,

:idence, education and medical attendance and treatnienl. In the case of an unmarried I lughter it includes isonable expense of and incidental to her mairiage.

It was considered that rights of maintenance includes persons who by reason of personal disqualification ire not allowed to inlierit, such as, an idiot, the mad pei> uiis and the rest. Such persons were excluded from boi itancc and a shai e on pjirtition was givai to tliern in lieu of maintenance.

Ordinal ily, an undivided or a joint Hindu family was joint not only in estate but also in food and worship, le existence of joint estate was not absolutely necessary to constitute a joint family and it was possible to have oint family which did not own any estate, altJiougli a family was presumed to be joint in food, worship and f tate, there was no presumption that it possessed joint property or any property at all.

The membei's of tiie joint family were bound together by the fundamental principle of Sapindaship or niily relationship which was the essence and the distinguishing feature of this institution of tlie joint family stem. Tliis body was purely .a creature, act of law and could not be constituted b) the act of any paities. y.vever, by luairiage and adoption, an outsider was affiliated as a member thereof But it was not a body

. ;)orate (Juristic person) and had no legal entity, distinct and i>eparate from that of the members who constituted

It was a unit tind in all mattei s was represented by its Karta.

Tlie Joint Family system w^s organised on the principle of sub-ordination and not on tliat of co-ordination

equality of the members with respect to rank and position under it. No two persons can be equal; one of them ust be superior and the other inferior relatively to each otlier .

Tlie membei's of the joint f

-inba s and unman ied dauglitcrs. 11ms a joint family consisted of the male members, tlieir wives, widows and iniari led daugliters. The Head of tins joint Janiily was kjiovvn as K-ula 'llie fatiier, if living would geneially be a Karta or the

. lanager of the faniily. He was considered to represent the family and the supreme authority in the management

•t'tlie family propert>’. Just because he was tlie Kaita ol'Lliejoi;: imiily, he had no largei' proprietaiy riglit in the

(S.uil> pi opcity Llian any other meiribeis. He was also not entitled to any remuneration.

r Ttie ioint family property was also died tlie coparcenaiy property in which every coparcener had joint josicssion and joint ownership. Tlie coparcenaiy property consisted of ancestral property inlierited by a male

{indu from his fatlier, grand-father or great gi and-fatlier and sq)arate property of coparcena s voluntarily thrown

Mto tlie common stock with the intention of abandoning all separate claims upon it.

The Karta was bound to its membei Si their wives and their children, to peiform the thread ceremonies of lien ns and to defray the expenses of their marriage, of their daughters and sons.

On marriage a husband became both legally and morally bound to maintain his wife and to provide her vith a suitable place of residence according to his status and circumstances.

. ■ idow 'A’as given land or lands, the income of which was to be used for her maintenance. A letter in llie

^eshwa Datlar, Volume 22, (I'g. 22o,) orders the local Kamvisadar, that Nimgaon Wagha, Pat Pamcr was allots o Aauhai, widow of Antaji Mankeshwai , for her maintenance and tliere after she should not be in trouble in its f •njoyment.

iV'i '!u^llIee Gopikabai, motJic:i of Peshwa Madliavrao, was given Belgaon and Gangapur for her

Maintenance. 'ITie aruiual inc mie of tliese villages was Rs. 1,900/-. In addition, she had an allowance of Rs.

[2,000/- pa‘ annum and was allowed finy other expenses. Tliere is a record in Peshwa Daftar Volume 22, of

0/3/1773 A.D. stating that Gopikabai was given villages of Mhasul, Sukene and Wadner for her personal

‘xpenses (31) .

/inandibai Ragliunath was in tlie imprisoninent at Kopergaoii with her entire family, incmding tiie vatakshalas and mistresses of her deceased husband. She was given an amount of Rs 2 lacks in cash per aiuiurnfor her niaintoiaiice is recorded in tiie 22^*'^ Volume of tliePeshvvaDafler.

Ji.,bai Bhanu, the onl; • un-'iving w idow of Nana Phaflnavis was granted R'. 1,200/- per annum for hei-

(32i t/naintenance

Laxniibai Shinde was one of the nine wives of Mahadaji Shinde, the gi eat nobleman from Gwalior. In

1794 A.D. when Mahadaji died, only tliree wives survived him, Laxmibai, Yamunabai and ^hagirathibai.

Bhagirathibai was 12 years old and very beautiful.

Even after nine maniages, Maliadaji had no son, so he liad adopted Daulatrao, son of Anandrao. ! Laxjnibai had opposed to this adoption but later Daulatrao promised to look after the widows and the rest of tlie

family well and she consented. After Mahadaji’s death, Laxmibai and the rest of the family lived at Ujjain, the

family residence. At first, Daulatrao did respect tiiem and took good care. Then he stopped the allowance and

the widows, Laxmibai and Yamunabai, came to Pune to settle their demands of the allowance. Bhagiratliibai was

on the side of Daulatrao and the other two widows wei'e not satisfied with her conduct

Bhagirathibai died and the two widows wei e left to figlit dieir battle. Laxmibai and Yamunabai were well

versed in the militaiy training and led their forces peisonally to the battle-fields. Daulatiao made conipromise

"^jind pretaided to accept their terms of maintenance of Rs. 10 lacks per annum. Sarjerao sent men to assassinate

the w'idows. The widows had camped at Tulapur, On 14 January 1800 A.D. Yamunabai was seriously injured

by the assassinates but survived the injuiy. One of the assassinate disclosed tlie name of his master, Sarjerao

Ghatge. There was a war fought between tlie two annies, heavy loss of man power incurred from both the sides.

In 1801 A.D. Daulatrao agi eed the demands of the widows and the 4 years war came to an end Laxmibai

wu>: U. fir.il \ aiifui in history to demand her riglits but she had to pay a high price for it.

^ In aiiothei' case, Gopalbhat Girje, who had no son, leaves instructions to Naiayan, Bhima, Yadoba,

Balki'isluia, Dhondu and Narsoba, tliat he had granted tliem tlie hiain Vritti and had also provided for tlie

maintenance ror nis widow, widowed daugiuer-ln-lavv and Uiat marriage expenses of his daughter be paid from me inaiii. Thcie was also a provision of Rs. 25/- per aimuni for miscellaneous expenses, llie widow aiid tlie d:ui,"hter-in-!aw, hovve\ t. Irid no - iohf to gi'ant the inam witti to miy other person than tiie above mentioned persons. I’hej’were provided with tlieir Hfe long m aintenance’I

STRlDliAN :

The word Stridhan is derived from tfie word “Stree” which means woman and “dhana” which means propat>'. Thus it literally means woman's property.

I I It is very diiricult to define Streedhana precisely; Hindu jurists only proceed to cribe its dilYereni varieties. It is sufficient to state that the term is used to denote property over which women were allowed to have tlieir own more or less sway in normal times.

Iji its origin, Sreedhana was vitally comiected witli the custom of bride-price {Sulka.). Tlie custom was no doubt a bad one, but it had one relieving feature. It helped the development of Streedhana. Owing to the alicction, wiiich pai'ents naturally felt for tlieir daugliters, tliey used to return usually a pait and sometimes even the whole of the bride-pnce to tlie bride, to be enjoyed by her as her separate estate during her own life.

If she died leaving children behind, her father would not object to the property devolving upon them, as ti..; were also his own grand-children. If, however, the daughter left no issue behind, ho" father would claim the property back from the son-m-law, who was expected to contract a fresh marriage in due course. In short, it may be concluded that one of tlie ingredients of Streedhana was a portion of tlie bride-price, returned to the bride by lior father.

Even when no bndu-jjiKc was paid, the bride used to receive some wedding git'ls. Pantuihya was Ihe renn used to denote them and the wife was to be their owntGifts given on such occasions usually consisted of omainents and clothes that could be wom by women alone. Men could have utilised them only b}- sale. In fliiidu society there is, liovvevcT, a deep prejudice against tliis procedure in connect) ’i with oniainents and

clotlies worn on auspicious occasions. Women therefore were naturally allowed to own these gifts.

Tl\e word Sti eetlhana is used in difrei ent senses in dilferent schools and in the Srnrutis. Manu enumerates

die following six kinds of Streedhana; i.e. gifts before the nuptial fire; which means gifts made at tlie time of

man iage before the fire; (anihyagni); gitls made at tlie bridal j)rocession, i.e. while tJie brides being led from tlie

reside 0 of her parents to tliat of her husband; {Adhyaraliamhi}', gifts made in token of love i.e. tliose made

tlirough affection by h«- fathei-in-law and mother-in-law (pritidcUta) and those made at the time of making

obeisance at the feet of elders {padavandamka)\ gifts made by her father, gifts made by her mother and gifts

made by her brother.

However, all the commentai rs agree that the above list is not an exhaustive enumeration of Streedhana.

To the above list Vishnu adds; gifts made by a husband to his wife on suppression, i.e. on tlie occasion of his

taking another wife (adJiivedcmika)', gift^ subsequent i.e. made after marriage by her husband’s relations or

(relations from her natal family (anwadheyaka); Sluilka or the man iage fee; and gifts made by sons and relations.

Kat>ayana maitions tlie same kinds of Streedliaiu, as numerated by Manu but Katyayana expressly

excludes fr m the category the gifts made by stiangers during the coverture (wedlock) as also the propaty

acquired by a woman during coverture by mechanical arts. Gifts from the strangers referred to in the above texts

ai e exclusive of gifts made before tJie nuptial fire and at tJie bridal procession. Such gif>'- ai e undoubtedly

Streedliana, The above texts are not applicable to gains of art or to gift^ from strangers during maidailiood or

during the widowhood. The words refer to the acquisitions and gifts from strangers during the coverture.

Iherefore, acquisitions and gifts from 'tie strangers during the maidenhood or widowhood would constitute

Streedhana. Almost all Snu'iti uriters mention ornainents given by a husband to his wife as her Streedlif^na

Yajnavalkya defines Slieedh uia as, '‘Wliat was t>iven to a woman, by her father, the motlier, the husbfuid

or a brother, or received by her before the nuptial fire, or presented to her on her husband’s mairiage to another

! 99 wile aiid tiie rest (adyaY' is Streedhaiia. So, that which is giveii by kindred, as well as ht. marriage fee {Siilki)

and anything bestowed after marriage is also included in Streedhana.

Concluding tiie Sniriti texts, it inc;y be said that it is only gills obtained by a woman from her relations ajid

her onifuiieiits and appnrel constituted tier SUucdtia:ui a; . 1 that the only sorts of gifts from tiie strangers which

come uiidei that nominatiori are presents before tlie nuptial fire and those made at Uie bridal procession. But

acitliL. ^ills V Mained from stiangers at any time, nor her acquisitions by labour and skill constitute her

Sti eedhana. Moveable property like ornaments, jewellery, costly appai el, etc. were her property, and tliis riglit to

own '.\ as recognised at a ver>' early date. All this property er ne under the category of Streedhana.

Originally Streedhana consisted usually of ornaments and costly clotlies. In course of time, landed

,n!open\ tlso began to be cor’^’cyed lo women as Streedliana property. In majority of cases, the propeity used to

be a gift from Uie husband 'iid therefore it belonged to the property of the joint family. The husband and other

male relatives must be claiming some powas over it for tlie welfare of tlie joint family; hence the mention in

Specific terms tliat the woman and after her death, tlie female heirs should enjoy iL

“/Ifler tlie release of Bangalore, tlie suiTounding places and the forts of Basecote and Selecote, the tlu ee

prants wonJi income of 3 lacks at present per annum, which will increase upto 5 lacks per annuiii is hereby

should be enjoyed by them. However, it should be enjoyed by the female heirs, i.e. tlie daugliters, for their private

expenses or maintenance” '.

After tiic deatli of her husband, I'Cliariderao, Aiiilyabai Holkar, had received from her fatlier-in-law,

Malhan ao, tJie income of onezi//w (province-district) as a Sadi-cJtoli Vatan

MaiTV' noblemen and other rich men made such arrangements and provisions for the maintenance of their u'*'>menfolk.

200 Tfiere was a ciis{o/ii of doiirjl 'p tiieir possessions at Uie deafJibed, hovvevei' there was no compulsion of

(lonating thetii. One record of convej'ing the news of the deatli of Sluiniant Matushiee Babasaheb, an elderly

la(hy from Puraiidare faitiily is worth reading. 'Flie letter states that the lady in question died on the evening of

"^XLicsday; tlie funei ai riles tookliie whole night; it was not a convenient time; tlie lad>’ had not gi anted any cliai it)’

during her life-time; nor did she did gave anything at Uie death-bed. Not a single penny nor any iewellery was

given to anybody. The writer further requests tlie reader to tear oil the letter after reading it, perhaps out of

regard to the dead, no ill feelings to be expressed but tiiere is a definite note of criticism about the lady's

chiiritv'^^'. ! I

Lad>' Ramabai, wife of Pe.^hwa Madliavrao, who accompanied her husband’s dead bod>' to the funeral

^ pvre, -dj'ing as Sati had donated all her ornaments to tlie people present Rani Sakawarbai, only surviving

widow of Chatrapati Shaliu, wlio died .Sati, too donated her ornaments before she accented tlie funeral pyre,

titling hei' status as tiie Queen of Chatiapati

Not only women donated theii oiiiamerits at tlie time of Sati or their death-bed, they also donated during

their life-time too Gopikabai, wife of Peshwa Nanasalieb, donated gold bangles woiH' 24 tolas, to Goddess

Mahalaxmi of Kolhapur IT

Kashibi i, wife of Peshwa Bajirao I, built gliats on the river bank and temples on tlie river side of her

natal village There are records of women donating lands to tlie vajious temples, in honour of tlieir visits.

Peshu a Nanasalieb’s paternal aunt Bhiubai was married to fiie brother of Bajuji Naik Joshi, Baianiatikai'.

Alto" her deatJi, Babuji Naik ni. ie a complaint to tlie senior wife of Chatrapati Shahu at Satara, claiming tJie

property worth 10/15 lacks and he had accused Nanasalieb of taking its possession. Niina Purandaie,

Nanasalieb's Kaibhiiri, at tiie Satai a Royal Couit, infoniis tlie Peshwa about tlie complaint.

Nanascilieb, replies, to Nana ii andai e, that Bhiubai. had disposed off her belongings during her lite-time.

She had also written dou'ii her wishes regarding tiie disposal of the left ovei s in her own liiuids. Tlic instmctions tu . ..>pose were specific and her wishes wo’e can ied on Babuji Naik had a desire for Uie Peshwaship and had

tried to create pi oblems for Nariasafieb tliroiigli the elder Queen of Shaliu. ITie letter indicates that the women

also made their wills to dispose off theii' propeily though not in the niodeni sense of a will, llieir wislies were

i.':sn iefi out in total is also indicated by Nanasaheb’s reply.

Men, wiieii inany'ing ^;econd time gave something to llie first wife, which was her Sreedlicina. But men also gave

land- to tlieir mistresses. Shahajiraje, fat}iei' of Shivaji, when he was in Pune, had a Muslim mistiess, called

Sultan Naru-udin, whom he had donated half chaver land

1 seems that Laxrif'i-'ai was tiie first woman who fought for a widow’s shai e in the propeily of her

husband, llie rest of tlu ii toleiated and bore all tlie injustice towaids than patiently. But tliis widow of

M;i}iada|i Shinde had to pay a heavy price for it. Daulatrao not only dj ove tJiem out of their residence, but also

sent assassins to kill her. But she did not meekly accept the situation. She revolted against it.

Tlie womai belonging to tiie centuiy had no riglits as such, not in tlie field of politics, economy,

social nor educational. Even if the husband was a vagabond, lunatic, addicted to alcohol, a great gambler, she

could not separate from him, take a shai e in tlie family propeity and live on her own. She was not considered in iruitters of marriage, even that of her ovwi, divorce, nor as a heir in hei' father’s or in her husband’s propert}'. Reference List:

OtM. p'^5.

uak. p. 105.

3. Oak. p.lOa.

4. R.P.P.S. p.41. Wad G.C. Feshwa Balaji Bajirao. P.Dy. VoI.H. p. 62-66. Maya Sardesai

Aiaharasiura Saudamini. Pune 1968. p. 46.

5. KelkcU’ Y.N. KaJii AixiLisikAprasiJho Ciuvitre. Pune. 1967. Mallharrao Holkar. p. 25.

Madhyayngiti Chatntrakosh. Afiilyabai Holkar. p. 86.

6. Oak. p. 105.

7. Deshniukh. p.235. R.P,P.S. p.41. ^kvihyayttgin Cluiritmkosh, Jijabai Bhonsale. p. 410.

8. Daiyabai Bhonsale. P.D. Vol. 20. p.302.

9. Saguruibai Naik-Nimbalkai: Dongre K.B. Atya Veerangana. 1945.

10. Oak. p 140,

1!. Driiyabai Nimbalkfir. R.P.P.S. p. P.D. Vol. 6. letter nos. 44,89 & 90.

Purjindai'eDiii^ar. Vol. 1. ietterno.292.

12. Miidhyayugin Cfiaiittakosh. / lilyabai Holkai'. p. 86. Parasnis D.B. MiJieshwar Darbarchi Batrni-patre,

Pnrt 1, p. 214-16

1 3 MaiaUii Riyasat Uttai- Vibhag 3, p.60. A.L.S.. letter nos. 5183, 5575, 5840, 5843, 5846, 6673 & 6865.

14, Aitihnsik . j.nita Lekha. Pail 4 . letter no.5 15. A. L. S. Pail 9 letter nos. 4 " ,'6, 4778, 4949, 4906, & 74920.

!6 I.)eshpfiridt Dr. Kiuiilabai. 2 vols. Pail, i p.63.

17. Ibid.

18. Altekai-. p.234.

19. Oak. p. 58-59.

20 Ibid.

21. Shivadigvijaya. Barada. Shake 1817. p. 327.

22. P.Dy. Vol. V. letter no. 554. p. 167.

23. P.iA'. Voi. Vffl. letter no. 858. p. 59.

24. Sardesai Maya. MaliarasJura Saiidamini. Pune. 1968. p. 137. Desliniukh. p. 238-239.

25. edi. Sane K.N. Tliorai^ Mddliavnio Peskwe. Ycvichi Rojanisfii. Part 1. 1911. p. 172.

26 All kar. p. 247.

27. P.D. Vol. 24. p. 264. P.D. Vol.22. p.234.

28. GokfialeDr. Kanial. ShivapiiimSamhliaji.?\xnQ\91l.\)AA. P.D. Vol. 9. p.203.

29. M. I. S Vol. 2 letter no. 461. p.430.

30. P.D, Vol. 23. letter no. 21. p. 16. Oak. p. 97-98.

i ,'i, Oalv.p. 74-75. R.P.P.S. p.l3.

32. P.D. Voi. 21. p.264. P.D. VA 22. p.231. 33 Marathi Riyasal Uttai'Vibhag ' ’ol.3. p. 70.

?4. M. 1. S. Vol. 24. letter no. 110. p.72. v"'. Taittriya Sariliita. VI. 2.1.1.

36, Aitekar. p. 220.

37. ShivaJig%yaya. Barada. Shake 1817. p. 326.

38 Madliya>iigin Chai itiakosh. Aliilyabai Holkiu'. p.86. Deslmiukli. p.219.

39. R,P.P.S. p. 12.

40. Oak. p. 74-75. R.P.P.S. p. 12.

4]. Dc.-.lunukjt. p. 153. Marathi Riyasat. PunyasholakSliaJw. p. 181-182.

42. Oa^:. p.73-75. R.P.P.S. p. 13.

43. 0(ik, [). 66. '

44. R.i^ P S, p. 12.

45 Deshrnukh. p. 115. Bhave. V.K. Yugapravariah Shivaji.

-XXX-