Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi

by Ganganatha Jha | 1920 | 1,381,940 words | ISBN-10: 8120811550 | ISBN-13: 9788120811553

This is the English translation of the Manusmriti, which is a collection of Sanskrit verses dealing with ‘Dharma’, a collective name for human purpose, their duties and the law. Various topics will be dealt with, but this volume of the series includes 12 discourses (adhyaya). The commentary on this text by Medhatithi elaborately explains various t...

Verse 9.72 [Repudiation of the Betrothed Maiden]

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

विधिवत् प्रतिगृह्यापि त्यजेत् कन्यां विगर्हिताम् ।
व्याधितां विप्रदुष्टां वा छद्मना चोपपादिताम् ॥ ७२ ॥

vidhivat pratigṛhyāpi tyajet kanyāṃ vigarhitām |
vyādhitāṃ vipraduṣṭāṃ vā chadmanā copapāditām || 72 ||

Even after having accepted the maiden in due form, one mat repudiate her, if she be blemished, or diseased, or corrupted, or betrothed by deception.—(72)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Form’—as prescribed in the scriptures; what is done in accordance with this—i.e., as laid down in 3.35 et-seq,—where the use of water has been held by some to be meant for the case of maidens.

When one has, according to this form, accepted a maiden,—he may ‘repudiate, her’—before marriage is done.

Blemished’—disfigured by evil bodily marks, not perceived before. Even though she may have been accepted, and be very handsome, yet if she be found to be wanting in modesty, or harsh of tongue.

Diseased’— suffering from consumption.

Corrupted’—one who is known among men as suffering from an incurable disease, or as being in love with another man.

Such a girl one may repudiate.

Some people have explained ‘vipraduṣṭā’ as ‘deflowered.’

This however is not accepted by others as right. So long as the girl has not been enjoyed by a man, and as such remains a ‘maiden,’ she cannot be regarded as ‘corrupted’; and after she has been enjoyed, she is no longer a ‘maiden’; so that in this case there could be no sense in the assertion that ‘one may repudiate the corrupted maiden.’ And the abandoning of the ‘deflowerd’ girl has been already laid down before (under 8.226).

Betrothed by deception’—actually wanting in limbs, or having superfluous limbs.

Since the text mentions the presence of defects as the ground for repudiation, it follows that even in the presence of such minor defects as are not mentioned here,—one may abandon the girl, even after betrothal.—(72)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Vipraduṣṭām’—‘Blemished, by bodily defects’ (Medhātithi, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana); ‘belonging to a base family’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 492), to the effect that it is not only the giver of a defective maiden that is to be punished, but the girl herself is to be renounced in Madanapārijāta (p. 154), which adds the following notes:—‘Vipraduṣṭā’ is one who entertains longings for another man,—‘Chadmanā’, by showing to the bridegrom a girl other than the one to be married;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 744), which adds the following notes:—

Vigarhitām’, already previously married, but ‘impenetrated;’ it quotes Medhātithi’s words as ‘pūrvam pratigṛhītām akṣatayonimapi’; ‘vipraduṣṭām,’ having her affections centred in another man;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 106), which explains ‘vigarhitām,’ as ‘defective’;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 221), as laying down the divorcing of a girl, after the detection of some defect in her,—it explains ‘vipraduṣṭām’ as ‘vividham prakarṣeṇa duṣṭām,’ ‘having several serious defects.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 9.72-73)

Viṣṇu (5.162).—‘The punishment of a thief is ordained for a suitor abandoning a girl after betrothal, if she is free from blemish.’

Yājñavalkya (1.66).—‘If a man gives away a girl without mentioning her defects, he should be fined with the highest amercement; but the man that abandons a faultless girl betrothed to him should be punished; and if he falsely attributes defects to her, he should be fined one hundred.’

Nārada (Aparārka, p. 96).—‘After having accepted a maiden free from defects, if the man abandons her, he should he punished; and even though he may desire another maiden he should marry the same former maiden.’

Do. (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 745).—‘One shall not find fault with a faultless bride, or with a faultless bridegroom; but if the fault is there, there is nothing wrong in mentioning it and abandoning one another.’

Kātyāyana (Do.).—‘If a man marries a girl without proclaiming his own defects, or asks for her hand, he shall not obtain her, even though she may have been betrothed to him. In the same manner if the girl is subsequently found to have defects, the giver of her shall be punished.’

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: