Verse 11.176

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

विप्रदुष्टां स्त्रियं भर्ता निरुन्ध्यादेकवेश्मनि ।
यत् पुंसः परदारेषु तच्चैनां चारयेद् व्रतम् ॥ १७६ ॥

vipraduṣṭāṃ striyaṃ bhartā nirundhyādekaveśmani |
yat puṃsaḥ paradāreṣu taccaināṃ cārayed vratam || 176 ||

If the wife is particularly corrupt, her husband should keep her confined in one room, and should make her perform that penance which has been prescribed for males in cases of adultery.—(176)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If she is ‘particularly corrupt the husband should keep her confined’—i.e., keep her away from all the duties of a wife’ such as ‘the collecting of wealth’ and so forth (described under 9.11).

‘In one room’—i.e., she should be kept in chains, and should not be permitted to roam about at will in her husband’s house.

While thus confined, she should be made to perform the necessary expiation.

“What expiation?”

‘That penance which, has been prescribed for males in cases of adultery’—that is, in the case of a Brāhmaṇa, adultery, when committed upon a woman of equal or inferior castes, is to be treated as a ‘minor offence,’ which involves the corresponding expiation. So also in the case of men of other castes; but when these latter commit the act on a woman of a superior caste, the expiation for the Vaiśya shall be double; it shall be triple in the case of a Kṣatriya misbehaving with a Brāhmaṇa woman. But for a Vedic scholar, the expiation shall be trebled;—when a Śūdra misbehaves with a Brāhmaṇa woman, the expiation is that which has been prescribed for ‘heinous offences’;—when a Vaiśya misbehaves with a Kṣatriya woman, it is to be treated as a ‘minor offence.’ All this distinction has been explained under ‘Punishments,’ The rules regarding women misbehaving with men of inferior castes shall be the same as those relating to men misbehaving with women of superior castes.

But though the offence may be equal, the corresponding expiation for women shall be only half (of what is prescribed for males);—‘women and sick men, boys up to the sixteenth year of age and men after or beyond the eightieth year are subject to only one-half of the prescribed expiation’—says a text

The expiation is lighter in the case of a woman whose unchastity is well known. For instance, if one misbehaves with an unchaste low-caste woman, he should bathe along with his clothes and give a water-jar to a Brāhmaṇa; and if with a similar Vaiśya woman, he should take food at the fourth meal-time and feed Brāhmaṇas; if with a Kṣatriya woman, he should fast for three days and should give a yavāṭaka. It has also been declared that he may be treated like a Vaiśya. The same should be understood to be the case with the wife of a Śūdra. In connection with people having intercourse with women during their courses or bringing about their conception, it has been declared that—‘if women of the Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya and Vaiśya castes, have intercourse with a Śūdra, they could be purified by expiations, if they have not conceived,—not otherwise.’

In the case of women who have not been wedded by any one, and live by prostitution, it is doubtful whether or not an expiation is necessary for having intercourse with them.

“Why should there be any such doubt?”

Because the term ‘dāra,’ ‘wife,’ connotes consecration (a woman who has passed through the sacrament of marriage); and when no marriage has been performed, the woman cannot be called any one’s ‘wife and expiations are necessary only in the case of intercourse with the ‘wife’ of another person. This would lead us to the conclusion that in the case in question no expiation is needed. On the other band, since it has been laid down that ‘one should remain attached to his own wife,’ we think that there should be expiation in the case in question (as it involves infidelity to one’s own wife).

“What then is the right view on this point?”

The right view is that expiation is necessary.

“Why so?”

Because the restriction (that one should he devoted to his own wife) has been directly enjoined, and expiation has been declared to be necessary in the case of one’s omitting to do what has been enjoined (11.41). Even though the offence may not fall under the category of ‘minor offences,’ yet that does not mean that there is to be no expiation. The various kinds of offences—‘minor offences,’ ‘offences leading to loss of caste,’ and so forth—have been enumerated, not by way of an exhaustive list (of offences requiring expiation), but only for the purpose of indicating the necessary expiations. The condition common to all offences has been summed up as—‘omitting to do what is enjoined, etc., etc.’ (11.44). The ease of the ‘wanton’ woman has been already explained, and the prostitute also is an ‘unchaste woman.’

“As a matter of fact, only that woman is to be called ‘another’s wife,’ ‘paradāra’ (in connection with the present context) who has intercourse with the paternal or maternal relations of her husband; and such women become known as ‘wanton,’ when they have intercourse with several men.”

True; but to the prostitute also, the term ‘svairiṇī,’ ^‘wanton,’ is applicable on the basis of her wantonness or want of self-control.

Hence in the case of these, there should he both, bathing along with clothes, and also the giving of a water-jar.

In connection with adultery some people hold the following opinion—The avoiding of sexual intercourse is of the nature of a vow, and as such pertains, not to all men, but to the Accomplished Student; as it is in reference to him that the texts have set forth the section beginning with the words^‘now his vow,’ and ending with—^‘these vows he shall keep.’—(176)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

The second half of this verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (1.70), and again under 3.265, as laying down the ‘Three Years’ Penance’ and such other penances for the woman’s offence of adultery with a man of the higher caste;—and in Aparārka (p. 98);—and the first half is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 285), which explains that the first half of the verse lays down what is to be done by the husband of the offending woman, and the second half what is to be done by the woman herself;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 370), which says that the meaning is that the husband should keep her in a room, without toilet or bath, meanly dressed, sleeping on the ground, with food just enough to keep her alive,—all this till her next menstruation.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 11.176-177)

Mahābhārata (12.165.63).—‘If one’s wife has misbehaved, she shall be kept confined, and made to perform the same penance that has been prescribed for the man committing adultery.’

Viṣṇu (53.8).—‘A woman who has committed adultery once must perform that penance which has been prescribed for the adulterer.’

Paribhāṣā (Aparārka, p. 1124).—‘For women and invalids, the expiatory penances are only half of what has been prescribed for men.’

Bṛhaspati (Do., p. 1124).—‘The woman who commits adultery should perform that same penance which men perform for the guilt of having intercourse with women of the same caste...... If the act has been committed without the woman’s consent, her husband shall keep her guarded in the house, clad in dirty clothes, sleeping on the ground, and subsisting on food given to her just enough to keep her alive; and he should have the expiatory penances of Kṛcchra and Parāka performed by her.’

Uśanas (Do., p. 1125).—‘If a man’s wife has misbehaved, he should keep her clad in inferior clothes, with all her authority taken away from her; and she should he made to perform either the Cāndrāyaṇa or the Prājāpatya.’

Saṃvarta (Do.).—‘If a woman has been ravished by force, with her heart burning with shame, she becomes purified by performing the Prājāpatya; there is no other purification for her.’

Ṛṣyaśṛṇga (Do.).—‘If a woman has been ravished by force by a man of her own caste, her expiation shall consist of fasting for three days.’

Gautama (Do.)—‘A misbehaved woman shall be kept guarded and receive mere subsistence.’