Manusmriti Chapter 9 Verse 225 ^new^ May 2026

Manusmriti Chapter 9, Verse 225 (often cited as Manu 9.225) is a significant verse within the ninth discourse of the Manava Dharmashastra, or the Laws of Manu. This chapter primarily focuses on the duties of husbands and wives, the laws of inheritance, and the administrative duties of a king in maintaining civil order. The Translation

3. The Strategic "Covering" (Gopayet)

The Sanskrit word used is gopayet, derived from the root gup (to guard, but also to conceal or cover).

Unmarried or without a husband: Her father or brother takes on the role of protector and authority. manusmriti chapter 9 verse 225

As a significant text in Hindu law and social norms, the Manusmriti continues to influence contemporary Indian society. While criticisms and controversies surround the text, Manusmriti Chapter 9 Verse 225 remains an important guide to understanding ancient Indian values and principles.

• It was allowed only when the husband was dead (or sometimes impotent/incurably ill) and had no son.
• The wife must give her consent after being "authorized" (by elders or her husband before death).
• The appointed male was typically a close male relative of the husband (a brother-in-law or sapinda), not a stranger or lover.
• The act was strictly procreative, not pleasurable. The man was to perform it as a duty, often with restrictions (e.g., at night, with oil, avoiding passion).
• The resulting son was legally considered the son of the husband, not of the biological father. He had no claim to the biological father's property.

"Gamblers, dancers, cruel men, men belonging to heretical sects, men addicted to evil deeds, dealers in wine—these the King shall instantly banish from his town." Key Groups Subject to Banishment Manusmriti Chapter 9, Verse 225 (often cited as Manu 9

In ancient Indian society, the Manusmriti was considered a seminal text that governed social and familial norms. The text was widely studied and respected by scholars, jurists, and rulers, who used its principles to guide their decisions and actions.

Final takeaway: To cite Manusmriti 9.225 without its historical context is misleading. To ignore its patriarchal violence is dishonest. The only responsible path is to study it as a document of its time—and then gratefully recognize that humanity has, slowly and painfully, moved beyond it. It was allowed only when the husband was

notes variations in interpretation among ancient commentators like Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa, and Nandana. For instance, while some see Kuśīlavān