Bad Marriages and Divorce in Hinduism
Bad Marriages and Divorce in Hinduism
In Hinduism, ideally a husband and wife should live together at all costs despite any quarrel that they have. I do not have divorced parents, but I too hold this ideal as no children should have to face the pain of their parents being separated. However, I do acknowledge that there will be cases where it is better for the wife to leave the husband should the latter be wicked. Again, ideally a couple should be willing to work out their problems and live together even if they have some major disagreements and are prone to arguing. But this is an ideal to strive for, and what I find wrong is to deem it a sin or crime to not fit into an ideal. The key word is ideal. And that brings me to a new Hermeneutical Principle that I am putting: Statement of Ideality.
Statement of Ideality
Scriptures may mention an ideal conduct, and that is all that is meant, it is ideal. There should be no chastisement if someone fails to fit into an ideal (provided they put a reasonable effort).
For example, if I say “A good child must obey and serve his parents”, that is an ideal.
However, if a child suffers the abuse of his parents but stays out of filial piety (love for the parents), then he is worthy to be praised as an angelic child. At the same time, should the child disobey against such wicked parents and flee from them, he is not to be chastised though he is not praised as an angel.
This principle is in line with logic and good judgement but doesn’t necessarily break the spirit of Hindu tradition. The other thing to note is that not everything in that the writers of the Smritis say is binding, only those that are based on Vedic Injunction is. All else is fair game to rejection, reinterpretation, and relaxation provided we do it in limits and with respect and good judgement, so as not to invalidate the authority of the Smritis.
The other thing to note is that men are permitted to have multiple wives at the same time in Hinduism, which isn;t surprising as Dahsaratha had 4, and Vasudeva had 2. However, this is not an excuse for a man to be lusty, as these are exceptional circumstances and have a catch to them.
With that, we shall look at verses from Manusmriti that are controversial regarding the wife’s duty to the husband and on divorce.
The first is regarding the cases where a Man can supersede (take a second wife) or cast off his wife. This is from Manusmriti 9.77-84. I will be retranslating it. One thing to note here is that the word for Superseding (marrying another wife) is from the root √abhivid. The word for Abandon or Cast-off is from the root √tyaj. The casting off means sent to her family for a certain time period. Here the word “must” doesn’t mean “should”, it can be “may”
Manusmriti 9.77-84.
In Sanskrit:
saṃvatsaraṃ pratīkṣeta dviṣantīṃ yoṣitaṃ patiḥ |
ūrdhvaṃ saṃvatsarāt tvenāṃ dāyaṃ hṛtvā na saṃvaset || 77 ||
atikrāmet pramattaṃ yā mattaṃ rogārtameva vā |
sā trīn māsān parityājyā vibhūṣaṇaparicchadā || 78 ||
unmattaṃ patitaṃ klībamabījaṃ pāparogiṇam |
na tyāgo'sti dviṣantyāśca na ca dāyāpavartanam || 79 ||
madyapā'sādhuvṛttā ca pratikūlā ca yā bhavet |
vyādhitā vā'dhivettavyā hiṃsrā'rthaghnī ca sarvadā || 80 ||
vandhyāṣṭame'dhivedyābde daśame tu mṛtaprajā |
ekādaśe strījananī sadyastvapriyavādinī || 81 ||
yā rogiṇī syāt tu hitā sampannā caiva śīlataḥ |
sā'nujñāpyādhivettavyā nāvamānyā ca karhi cit || 82 ||
adhivinnā tu yā nārī nirgacched ruṣitā gṛhāt |
sā sadyaḥ saṃniroddhavyā tyājyā vā kulasaṃnidhau || 83 ||
pratiṣiddhā'pi ced yā tu madyamabhyudayeṣvapi |
prekṣāsamājaṃ gacched vā sā daṇḍyā kṛṣṇalāni ṣaṭ || 84 ||
In English
77) The husband should wait upon his hating wife for a year. Above a year, having taken her gifts, he should not cohabit (with her).
78) She who may neglect (a husband) who is drunk/mad, intoxicated, or afflicted by disease, she, with her ornaments and paraphernalia, must be casted off for 3 months.
79) She who is hating the (husband who is) greatly drunk, fallen, impotent, infertile, diseased with sin, has no casting off nor taking away of her ornaments.
80) She who may become a drinker of alcohol, of imperfect-conduct (horrible conduct), aversive (hostile), or diseased, vile, wasteful may be superseded.
81) In 8 years a barren (wife) may be superseded, but in ten (years) she whose offspring are dead, in 11 she who gives birth to girls, but immediately she who is of unpleasant speech.
82) But she who may be diseased (with the previous qualities) and is endearing and excellent, she after giving permission may be superseded, She must never be contempted.
83) By the angered women who is superseded that may go away from the house, she immediately must be restrained/confined or must be left in the vicinity of (her) family [leave her at her parents’ house].
84) If though forbidden, she who may go towards wine even in festivals, shows, assemblies, she must be fined 6 Kshanalas.
______
Notice here how though a man is permitted to take up another wife, he is permitted to do so under certain circumstances! A man can’t out of lust take up multiple wives. And even when he is going to marry another wife, provided that the wife is not a very bad person, who doesn’t resort to vices, then he has to get the consent of his wife. Notice how divorce in the strict sense isn’t advocated. The casting off seems to be referring to leaving the wife at her family’s house.
What about Verse 78 that says a wife should not neglect a drunk or intoxicated husband? Surely if the husband is drunk or intoxicated, he must be chastised and if he is violent on account of his drunkenness, then the wife has a right to not be near him. This is true, but it is a misunderstanding of the significance of the verse.
Notice how the words “drunk/mad” and “intoxicated” are in the same list as “afflicted with disease”. So Manu seems to be implying a state of helplessness when he refers to “drunk” or “intoxicated”. This makes sense, because if your friend comes home hungover with alcohol or some other drug, he is on the verge of death (overdosing, choking on vomit, or hurting themselves), and must be taken care of. Such is the cruciality of helping a drunk or intoxicated person. In my university, if an underaged student drinks alcohol and becomes sick, you can call the paramedics without fear that they will be arrested afterwards. Again, the police that accompany the ambulance won’t seek to arrest the underaged drinker for making a poor choice.
And it is not like the wife can’t chastise the husband for his bad conduct, because the following verse, Verse 79, Manu says, “She who is hating the (husband who is) greatly drunk, fallen, impotent, infertile, diseased with sin, has no casting off nor taking away of her ornaments.”
What if the husband is violent on account of his drunkenness or intoxication? The text at present is referring to drunk and intoxication in terms of helplessness, so this is an irrelevant issue, However, to answer, it is implied when it is said that a wife must not neglect her husband when drunk or intoxicated, that she must care for his welfare. But how can anyone, let alone a wife, take care of a violent person, care for such a person? It is difficult to tend to such people when their safety is on the line. Hence, there is no crime or sin if a wife distances herself from a violent drunkard husband.
That being said, it is encouraged that a wife takes care of her husband’s well being even if the husband made some poor choices.
The Sadhvi
Let us now look at verses that seem to make the wife a “slave” to her husband. These are from Manusmriti 5. 149-164.
Manusmriti 9.77-84.
In Sanskrit:
yasmai dadyātpitā tvenāṃ bhrātā vā'numate pituḥ |
taṃ śuśrūṣeta jīvantaṃ saṃsthitaṃ ca na laṅghayet || 149 ||
maṅgalārthaṃ svastyayanaṃ yajñaścāsāṃ prajāpateḥ |
prayujyate vivāhe tu pradānaṃ svāmyakāraṇam || 150 ||
anṛtāvṛtukāle ca mantrasaṃskārakṛtpatiḥ |
sukhasya nityaṃ dātaiha paraloke ca yoṣitaḥ || 151 ||
viśīlaḥ kāmavṛtto vā guṇairvā parivarjitaḥ |
upacāryaḥ striyā sādhvyā satataṃ devavatpatiḥ || 152 ||
nāsti strīṇāṃ pṛthagyajño na vrataṃ nāpyupoṣaṇam |
patiṃ śuśrūṣate yena tena svarge mahīyate || 153 ||
pāṇigrāhasya sādhvī strī jīvato vā mṛtasya vā |
patilokamabhīpsantī nācaretkiṃ cidapriyam || 154 ||
kāmaṃ tu kṣapayeddehaṃ puṣpamūlaphalaiḥ śubhaiḥ |
na tu nāmāpi gṛhṇīyātpatyau prete parasya tu || 155 ||
āsītāmaraṇātkṣāntā niyatā brahmacāriṇī |
yo dharma ekapatnīnāṃ kāṅkṣantī tamanuttamam || 156 ||
anekāni sahasrāṇi kumārabrahmacāriṇām |
divaṃ gatāni viprāṇāmakṛtvā kulasantatim || 157 ||
mṛte bhartari sādhvī strī brahmacarye vyavasthitā |
svargaṃ gacchatyaputrā'pi yathā te brahmacāriṇaḥ || 158 ||
apatyalobhādyā tu strī bhartāramativartate |
seha nindāmavāpnoti paralokācca hīyate || 159 ||
nānyotpannā prajā'stīha na cāpyanyaparigrahe |
na dvitīyaśca sādhvīnāṃ kva cidbhartopadiśyate || 160 ||
patiṃ hitvā'pakṛṣṭaṃ svamutkṛṣṭaṃ yā niṣevate |
nindyaiva sā bhavelloke parapūrvaiti caucyate || 161 ||
vyabhicārāttu bhartuḥ strī loke prāpnoti nindyatām |
śṛgālayoniṃ prāpnoti pāparogaiśca pīḍyate || 162 ||
patiṃ yā nābhicarati manovāgdehasaṃyutā |
sā bhartṛlokamāpnoti sadbhiḥ sādhvīti cocyate || 163 ||
anena nārī vṛttena manovāgdehasaṃyatā |
ihāgryāṃ kīrtimāpnoti patilokaṃ paratra ca || 164 ||
In English
149) But to whomever the father may give, or the brother in the permission of the father, she should desire to listen to him (tend to him) till the end of life, and she should not insult.
150) But for the purpose of auspiciousness that is conducive prosperity, the Yajna of Prajapati is enjoined in marriage, and the giving-way is making (her) one’s own.
151) Not in season or in seasonal time, the husband doing the mantra-samskaras is constantly the giver of happiness to the wife in the afterworld (after death)
152) Bad mannered or Dissipated (indulging in sensual pleasures), or destitute with (good) qualities, the husband who is like a god must be attended upon by the Sadhvi woman.
153) Women don’t have a separate Yajna, nor vow, nor fasting also. That by which she desires to listen to (attends to) the husband, by that she becomes exalted in heaven. [wife gets heaven for serving husband]
154) The Sadhvi woman of whom she took the hand (in marriage), living or dead, desiring Patiloka shouldn’t perform anything unendearing.
155) (well might) As per desire she may ruin (her) body with pure flowers, roots, and fruits, but not even should she take the name, after the passing of the husband, of another.
156) She must be till death, patient, (self) controlled, and a celibate, longing for that highest Dharma of those who have one husband.
157) Manifolds and thousands of those celibate from (having) children have gone to heaven of the Brahmanas without producing progeny.
158) In the (time of a) dead husband, the Sadhvi woman is situated in celibacy. Even childless she goes to heaven, just like those celibate ones (in the past).
159) From a longing for a child , that woman who turns away from the husband, here she obtains disapproval/reproach and falls (short) from the afterworld (heaven).
160) Here there is no progeny born from another (man), and not even in the wife of another. Not ever is it instructed/advised of Sadhvi women as a second (husband).
161) Having forsaken an inferior/unprominant husband and pursues a superior/prominent (man) she becomes reproachable in this realm and is called thus a “she who has a former other” (“remarried”, parapUrvA).
162) From the straying/transgressing from her husband, she obtains disapproval/reproach in the realm, she obtains the womb of the jackal and is affiliated with misfortunate diseases.
163) She, united with mind, speech, and body, who doesn’t transgress the husband, she obtains the realm of the husband (bhartRloka) and is called by the truthful ones as thus “Sadhvi”.
164) By that conduct, a woman endowed united with mind, speech, and body, gets the highest fame here (in this world) and patiloka beyond (in the afterlife).
___
Notes:
**Under Verse 149, Medhatithi clarifies that while the text speaks of the father as having the ultimate authority to whom he may give away his daughter, the father must get the consent of the mother. This is not relevant, and nor is there any Smriti or Shruti that I know that supports this, but it seems that we have a food for thought from Medhatithi.
**Verse 150, I translated the word SvayankAraNa as “making one’s own”, but the existing translation is “source of ownership”. Ownership is not a wrong way to translate it, but it is wrong to assume that this means a wife is mere property to own. Manu 9.95 says a wife is a gift from the gods, and underneath it Medhatithi later writes that a wife is to be distinguished from cattle or gold picked up at a market.
**Verse 153 says women don;t have a separate Yajna. This may be because they are not (typically) learned in the Vedic texts, but this is not a prohibition of them from learning the Vedas, to invoke the principles of Precluding the Effect doesn’t Preclude the Cause and Presumption of Normalcy. Women’s right to Vedic study will be dealt with in another article, so save any criticisms.
**In Verse 154, I left Patiloka untranslated. It means the “husband’s realm”, which means the wife goes to wherever the husband is in the afterlife. It seems that commentators see this as the realms which the wife earns for herself for serving the husband.
**In Verse 161, the word apakRSTa means vile or inferior literally means “dragged away” and is contrasted with utkRSTa meaning excellent or prominent, literally meaning “dragged up” (to a higher status). Hence I translated apakRSTa as unprominant. To give an example of what the verse might be advocating for is that women shouldn’t leave a poor man for a rich man, and such.
So the first thing you notice is that you see the word Sadhvi used a lot throughout the text. The word sAdhvI is the feminine form of sAdhu meaning “perfect” or “proper” and given that it means a Sadhu (saintly person) we can see that the perfection in question has the connotation of saintliness.
It seems that what Manu is doing is describing what a Sadhvi or a perfect woman or perfect wife is and how she should behave regarding her relation to her husband. No where is it saying that every woman must become a Sadhvi. As such, we have ourselves a Statement of Ideal. So when Verse 152 witches say to serve the husband be he of bad qualities and such, it applies to the Sadhvi or “perfect wife”, an ideal. Manu is not forcing a woman to do so, but should a wife want to be called a Sadhvi, then this is how she should conduct herself. In other words, all this is a description, not a forceful prescription.
This makes sense as we all can agree that a woman who can put up with a husband of bad character with devotion deserves all the praises in the world (refer to Verse 164). Such a woman would be an angel!
On that note, other texts do make exceptions to devotional service in the event that husband is of bad character:
Refer to Bhagavatam 7.11.28:
“santuṣṭālolupā dakṣā dharma-jñā priya-satya-vāk apramattā śuciḥ snigdhā patiṁ tv apatitaṁ bhajet”
“(A wife who is) content, free from desire, diligent, knowing Dharma, with endearing truthful speech, unintoxicated, clean, agreeable, shall devote to an unfallen husband”
Prabhupada says in his commentary below does say a wife shouldn’t serve a husband who is of bad character and should give up his association. However, he limits the fallen nature to gambling, meat-eating, illicit sex, intoxication and he says that the wife shouldn’t remarry but live in a separate house. We are not obliged to agree with his restrictions and can extend the nature of fallen to include being abusive and such. Besides, abusiveness is of the same mentality or rather a more vile mentality than that of those who engage in the 4 vices that Prabhupada mentioned.
That all being said, if a woman doesn’t attend to a husband with bad character, while she may not be a Sadhvi nor attain Patiloka, we shouldn’t deem it a sin or crime to do so.
Also, under Manu 5.155, Medhatithi talks about the practice of Sati, and condemns it as suicide is a sin as per the Vedic scriptures. However, the Smriti texts seem to enjoin Sati. To this, Medhatithi says
“As in the case of men, so in that of women also suicide is forbidden. As for what Aṅgiras has said—‘they should die after their husband’,—this also is not an obligatory act, and so it is not that it must be done. Because in connection with it there is an eulogium bestowed upon the results proceeding from such suicide.”
So we can say that acts which are eulogised, with Arthavada, for having a desirable material result are not obligatory, provided acting contrary to it is not deemed a sin in the strict sense. The eulogy that an animal will get a heavenly body when sacrificed in a Yajna that promises heaven and other material results, and no sin attached for not performing the animal sacrifice indicates, means that such an animal sacrifice is not obligatory, though praised.
Now Medhatithi doesn’t hold the above opinion; we extrapolated it, and in the same passage Medhatithi goes on to advocate against widow remarriage, but such an extrapolation is not far fetched.
The Sadhvi by unconditionally serving her husband is going to get Patiloka, she will get praise and such. If a woman is not a Sadhvi, she is simply not going to get Patiloka or any material results associated with being a Sadhvi, that is all.
It is just an ideal!!
Objection! Manu later says that a woman will be reproached and born in a Jackal and fall from heaven. So there are sins associated with not being a Sadhvi.
Those verses you cited, Manu 5.159 and Manu 5.161-162, reek of Arthavada. When texts say that one will be reborn as this or that or go to hell, these are often Arthavada, meant to depreciate or motivate a certain action. I will first talk about the latter set of verses before the former.
While Verse 159 talks about when the husband is dead, Verses 161-162 talk about when the husband is alive as it says that a woman is reproached for abandoning an inferior/unprmomant person for a superior/priminant person. To clarify, it seems that this verse is talking about scenarios such as when a woman leaves her poor husband for a rich man. This is obviously condamnable as it is cheating and genuine infidelity. So no question here.
Regarding Verse 159, the consequences of a woman seeking other men are threefold. The first is that women having a child with another man won’t be her child as per Hindu law. Its juxtaposition with a man begetting a child on the wife of another man seems to be indicating that, in contrast to what Medhatithi thinks, this talks about a woman who simply sleeps with another man simply to get pregnant. But even if this means remarriage, the reproach is by the society. On that note, we as a society should not see women who lost their husbands and chose to remarry with contempt, thereby invalidating Manu’s predictions of reality.
As for the “falling from heaven”, the verb hIyate is better as “falling short from heaven”, as how can a woman fall from heaven (like Nahusa) if she has not even died? All that is meant is that the woman won’t get Patiloka for not being a Sadhvi. It isn’t wrong, and each woman should ask themselves if Patiloka is worth staying in a toxic relationship.
Besides, if this was a matter of “do this because it is morally correct” or “don’t do this it is morally incorrect”, and that the statements of heaven and Patiloka are not Arthavada, then the statement of Patiloka or heaven would be contrasted with a hell, but we don’t. Instead, we get that she will be reborn as a jackal or afflicted with disease, which is not as severe as hell. So even if it was “wrong” it should at most be pApa (misfortune) but never aparAdha (crime or offence).
Besides, we have texts that do explicitly say a woman can forsake her husband and remarry.
Parashara Smriti 4.30
“naSTe mRte pravrajite klIbe patite patau pancasvApatsu nariNAm patir anyo vidhIyate”
“In the (case of) a perished, dead, impotent, or fallen husband, in (such) 5 calamities, women have been alloted another husband”
(https://archive.org/details/ParasharaSmriti/page/n35/mode/2up?view=theater )
Now Medhatithi under Manusmriti 5.155 says that the word pati in such statements is meaning protector. The literal meaning of pati is “protector” as the husband protects the wife. Pati also means “lord” or “master” as such people protect the land, but when it came to words like senApati, the word had already become generalised to mean “a leader”.
In any case, such an interpretation is not sound as the verses before and after deal with marriages and the husband and wife relations. So pati should, like in the surrounding verses, mean “husband”. Besides, how can there be lack of protection from an impotent (klIba) protector to cause the need for a woman to have recourse to another protector.
If klIba is to be interpreted as “coward” still here there can be protection, though not much, and only in times of war or danger would this be an issue, and is it right for a woman to abandon her husband, sorry-- protector, on the perceived risk that she won;t be protected in danger?
Objection! This contradicts Manu’s statements saying that a woman should be celibate in the event her husband dies and that no second husband has been ordained for them.
To this we say, as mentioned before Manu was mentioning this as a Statement of Ideality, and it applies to Sadhvi and not the laywomen, though it is encouraged that laywomen try to be Sadhvis. Because these are Statements of Ideality, there is no force in them to contradict Parashara’s opinion of remarriage. As for the statement that no second disband has been advised, this again is applied to a Sadhvi and not a laywomen, and the verb upadishyate, from √upadish meaning to “instruct” , “advise”, “teach”, or “point out”, signifies that what is said was advised and not obliged or ordained.
Again, the Parashara goes on to say in next verse: “If a woman has led a continent life, after her lord departed this life, she wins a region of bliss after her death, like to the well-known male observers of a celebate life”.
This is paralleling Manu’s statement that a Sadhvi goes to heaven or Patiloka if she remains chaste. Parashara talks about the ideal wife in the verse immediately after talking about remarriage, and why would he deliberately juxtapose two contradicting statements? That is because the latter is a eulogy and the former is a statement of what is allowed. A woman is allowed to remarry but it is preferred that she doesn;t and remains chaste.
“But the following verse enjoins Sati, and suicide is a sin as per the Vedic texts, so how can we take the verse on on remarriage as authoritative? “
The verse on Sati is a eulogy praising the devotion of the woman to her husband that is so great that she is willing to join him immediately after death. All that it is saying is that doing an act has its rewards, even though it may not be Dharmic. Medhatithi under Manu 5.155 gives the example of the Shyena sacrifice, which is done to cause harm to another. How can the Vedas, the source of Dharma, enjoin such a sacrifice? They don’t, they just say that this is how one does the sacrifice and these are the rewards one gets, but they don’t ordain its performance.
Returning to remarriage, the statement of Parashara is repeated in Narada Smriti 12.97, Garuda Purana 1.107.28, and the Agni Purana 154.4-7. The latter goes on to say that the widow should be betrothed to the brother of the dead husband. The reason for this is that the prospective child’s gotra would be the same as that of the original husband. In modern terms, if the widow wants to have the child have the same last name as the husband, she can’t marry any random man as it will be his last name that is inherited, but if she remarries to her brother-in-law, then the last name is the same as her original husbands and the child inherits that. A lot of the restrictions of women regarding marriage is due to the issue of paternity.
When Damayanti, Bhima’s daughter, was about to have another Swayamvara arranged for her because it was unknown to Nala, her husband, was dead or not.
“And after he had gone away, Damayanti oppressed with grief and distress, calling Sudeva, addressed him, O Yudhishthira, in the presence of her mother, saying, 'O Sudeva, go thou to the city of Ayodhya, straight as a bird, and tell king Rituparna living there, these words: 'Bhima's daughter, Damayanti will hold another Swayamvara. All the kings and princes are going thither. Calculating the time, I find that the ceremony will take place tomorrow. O represser of foes, if it is possible for thee, go thither without delay. Tomorrow, after the sun hath risen, she will choose a second husband, as she doth not know whether the heroic Nala liveth or not. And addressed by her, O monarch thus, Sudeva set out. And he said unto Rituparna, all that he had been directed to say.”
https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03070.htm
Another Provision for the texts is that if a woman marries and the husband dies whilst the marraige was never consumated, then the virgin woman can marry again:
सा चेदक्षतयोनिः स्याद् गतप्रत्यागताऽपि वा ।
पौनर्भवेन भर्त्रा सा पुनः संस्कारमर्हति ॥ १७६ ॥
sā cedakṣatayoniḥ syād gatapratyāgatā'pi vā |
paunarbhavena bhartrā sā punaḥ saṃskāramarhati || 176 ||
If she may be an akshatayoni or a gatapratyagata, she may do again the Sacrement (of marraige) with with her Punarbhava husband.
Clarification of Terms
"15. f a damsel has been abducted by force, and has not been wedded with sacred texts, she may lawfully be given to another man; she is even like a maiden.[8]
16. If, after (a damsel) has been given away, or even after (the nuptial sacrifices) have been offered, the husband dies, she who (thus) has left (her father's house) and has returned, may be again wedded according to the rule applicable to second weddings, provided the marriage had not been consummated"
Notice how in Verse 15, Baudhayana says that a woman can be remarried if she was abdicted by force. This would mean that Salva was wrong to have rejected Amba when she was kidnapped by Bhishma, and when Lakshmana (Duryodana's daughter) was abducted by Shamba, the Kouravas claim that remarraige is against the rules, and they were wrong.
Narada Smriti 12.96-97 has similar provisions:
"96. When a faultless maiden has been married to a man who has a blemish unknown (before his marriage), and does not repair to another man (after discovering it), she shall be enjoined to do so by leer relations. If she has no relations living, she shall go (to live with another man) of her own accord.
97. When her husband is lost or dead, when he has become a religious ascetic, when he is impotent, and when he has been expelled from caste: these are the five cases of legal necessity, in which a woman may be justified in taking another husband."
So not only does Narada reaffirm the rule of Parashara, but he also says that a maiden who discovers that her husband is of bad charecter (basically tricked into a bad marraige), she is allowed to divorce that husband and marry again.
Some Smritis and commentators don't allow a woman to beget children on a second man, but others do provided it is the man's immediate male relatives. This is Niyogi. Chapter 154 of the Angi Purana reiterates the 5 calamities in which a woman can remarry, but also interates that if the husband is dead, she is to be enjoined to a male relative, and only if no such relative is available can she choose another man for herself.
The Shri Shiva Rahasya Chapter 11 Verses 87-89 has provisions on divorce and such:
(https://archive.org/details/ShriShivaRahasya/page/n43/mode/2up; pg 161 and foreward)
Verse 87:
"87. The same shall apply to the woman whose husband passes away without sons and who for the sake of preserving the husband's line bears a child by another man. And if both parents are appointed by a childless man to bear a son on his behalf then the child shall belong to the man who appointed them. Likewise, a child wilfully abandoned by his parents shall belong to those who foster him. The child that springs from the union of a man with an unwilling woman shall belong to the mother alone if she desires to keep him. But it were better for her not to bring him into the World. For the fruit of such an union is a poisoned fruit that spreads evil upon Earth for seven generations and more. Let there be no doubt about this.
88. Let husband and wife be ever true to each other. The husband or wife who is unfaithful to the other shall atone for his or her transgression by fasting for three days, giving unto the other gifts of livestock, jewellery or other valuables, and vowing not to transgress again. If the vow is broken once, the fast and the amount of gifts shall be doubled. But if the vow be broken twice, the bond of marriage shall be regarded as severed and the couple shall either marry again after one year or go separate ways. But it were better for them to make up and stay faithful to each other. Such ones are true followers of Unity and an example unto all
89. If a man wishes to divorce his wife, he shall not keep the dowry, nor demand (the return of) the gifts he has given her, nor shall he keep what she has given him. The same shall apply to the woman who seeks to divorce her husband and to those that are not married but live together (as if married). But he who divorces his wife shall provide for her and their child until such time as they find other means of sustenance except when the wife is able to support herself. If the man becomes unable at any time to provide for himself, his wife or their children, their needs shall be met by their kinsfolk, neighbours, the village elders or the King"
Notice how that man is also not supposed to cheat on his wife. Even though the texts may allow a man to take up another wife, this is under only certain circumstances, and doesn;t consitute an excuse for adultry.
On Women who have been Assaulted
"सुप्तां मत्तां प्रमत्तां वा रहो यत्रोपगच्छति ।
स पापिष्ठो विवाहानां पैशाचश्चाष्टमोऽधमः ॥ ३४ ॥
suptāṃ mattāṃ pramattāṃ vā raho yatropagacchati |
sa pāpiṣṭho vivāhānāṃ paiśācaścāṣṭamo'dhamaḥ || 34 ||
The commentary gets confusing after but essentially Medhatihi says that approaching a girl (and by extension intercourse) is not the principle factor for marraige:
"Thus, then, since the performance of sacramental rites has been interdicted in the case of girls who have already had sexual intercourse,—and since the ‘Paiśāca’ also is, like the ‘Brāhma’ and the rest, a means (of acquiring a wife),—and since, therefore, this form also is capable of being culled ‘marriage,’—it follows that what is denoted by the term ‘approach,’ ‘upagama’ (‘intercourse’) is only a secondary factor."
In other words, the maidenhood or virginity of a woman is not truly destroyed when asaulted. This makes her eligible for marraige with the sacrements. This makes sense from a philosphical view point, because the emphasis of virginity, for both woman or man, is not physical but mental. To be chaste is the ideal because it signifies willpower to resreve oneself for the right person and it relfects that one has respect for their body. Someone who has illicit pleasure looses their maidenhood as it is on account fo the conscious choice to disrespect their body, but this can't be said for someone who is assaulted, and therefore their maidenhood is intact. Again, it is not the physical act that matters, but the mentality involved.
Conclusion
I want to end this by saying once again that couples should try to stay together despite all odds. If the spark of love is no longer there, then it is your job to rekindle it. Anything but divorce in this case. Think of the children, they don;t want a divided family, and by remarrying their family tree becomes complicated. This is why even though I argue that Hinduism does allow widows to remarry, I would still advise to pursue celibacy as the children don’t want someone to replace their father figure. This goes for a man whose wife has died, try not to replace your children’s mother figure. Now if your partner is of bad character, try telling him kindly or tell his parents to straighten them out. Might I suggest a therapy session for that person.
Now, if the relationship becomes toxic or abusive, then it is fine for the woman to abandon her husband. I am not denying this, and nor should society judge if a woman for the fear of her safety and well being decides to divorce the husband.
Comments
Post a Comment