'A Corporation of Superior Prostitutes' Anglo-Indian Legal Conceptions of Temple Dancing Girls, 1800-1914

Modern Asian Studies

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 559-633

  Parker, Kunal M ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037562994     PISSN: 0026749X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0026749X98003187     Document Type: Article

References (272)

1. Statement attributed to Justice West of the Bombay High Court in Indu Prakash, 14 March, 1887, quoted in Sudhir Chandra, 'Whose Laws?: Notes on a Legitimising Myth of the Colonial Indian State', Studies in History, 8 (1992), 187, 210 (emphasis added).
2. Statement attributed to Justice West of the Bombay High Court in Indu Prakash, 14 March, 1887, quoted in Sudhir Chandra, 'Whose Laws?: Notes on a Legitimising Myth of the Colonial Indian State', Studies in History, 8 (1992), 187, 210 (emphasis added).
3. This description of temple dancing girls is a simplification, owing to considerable regional variations among the practices of temple dancing girls. Contemporary scholars have offered detailed ethnographic accounts of temple dancing women to which the reader is referred. See, generally, Saskia C. Kersenboom-Story, Nityasumangali: Devadasi Tradition in South India (Delhi, 1987); Frédérique Apffel Marglin, Wives of the God-King: The Rituals of the Devadasis of Puri (Delhi, 1985).
4. This description of temple dancing girls is a simplification, owing to considerable regional variations among the practices of temple dancing girls. Contemporary scholars have offered detailed ethnographic accounts of temple dancing women to which the reader is referred. See, generally, Saskia C. Kersenboom-Story, Nityasumangali: Devadasi Tradition in South India (Delhi, 1987); Frédérique Apffel Marglin, Wives of the God-King: The Rituals of the Devadasis of Puri (Delhi, 1985).
5. The colonial state resolutely fended off attempts to force it to legislate on the subject until the 1920s. See M. Sundara Raj, Prostitution in Madras: A Study in Historical Perspective (Delhi, 1993) (esp. Chapter 6); Kay K. Jordan, 'Devadasi Reform: Driving the Priestesses or the Prostitutes Out of Hindu Temples?' in Robert Baird (ed.), Religion and Law in Independent India (New Delhi, 1993), 256.
6. The colonial state resolutely fended off attempts to force it to legislate on the subject until the 1920s. See M. Sundara Raj, Prostitution in Madras: A Study in Historical Perspective (Delhi, 1993) (esp. Chapter 6); Kay K. Jordan, 'Devadasi Reform: Driving the Priestesses or the Prostitutes Out of Hindu Temples?' in Robert Baird (ed.), Religion and Law in Independent India (New Delhi, 1993), 256.
7. Specific configurations of the political economy of colonialism 'explain' the shifting relations between these forces. See D. A. Washbrook, 'Law, State and Agrarian Society in Colonial India', Modern Asian Studies, 15 (1981), 649.
8. Whitley Stokes, The Anglo-Indian Codes (2 Vols) (Oxford, 1887), I, 71.
9. W. C. Petheram, 'English Judges and Hindu Law', Law Quarterly Review, 56 (1898), 392, 394.
10. N. Wagle, 'A Dispute Between the Pancal Devajna Sonars and the Brahmins of Pune Regarding Social Rank and Ritual Privileges: A Case-Study of the British Administration of Jati Laws in Maharashtra, 1822-1825', in N. Wagle, Images of Maharashtra (London, 1980).
11. M. P. Jain, 'Custom as a Source of Law in India', in Alison Dundes Renteln and Alan Dundes, Folk Law: Essays in the Theory and Practice of Lex Non Scripta (2 Vols) (New York and London, 1994), I, 54-8.
12. Collector of Madura v. Moottoo Ramalinga Sathupathy, 12 M.I.A. 397, 436 (1868).
13. Ningowa v. Ningungowda, S.D.A. Bombay 89, 90 (1857).
14. Amrit Srinivasan, 'Reform and Revival: The Devadasi and Her Dance', Economic and Political Weekly, 20/44 (1985), 1869.
15. James Mill, The History of British India (Notes by H. H. Wilson) (5th ed.) (London, 1840), 312.
16. This paper deliberately employs the colonial labels 'temple dancing girl or 'dancing girl' over the term 'devadasi'. The term 'devadasi' was not employed commonly within Anglo-Indian legal discourse until the second half of the nineteenth century. Even then, it never dislodged the colonial label 'dancing girl'.
17. J. R. Gharpure, Rights of Women Under the Hindu Law (Bombay, 1943), 155.
18. Francis Buchanan, A Journey from Madras through the Countries of Mysore, Canara, and Malabar (3 Vols) (London, 1807).
19. Abbé J. A. Dubois, Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies (Henry K. Beauchamp trans., 3rd ed.) (Oxford, 1906). Dubois' account was first translated into English in 1816.
20. Buchanan, supra note 15, at II, 266 (emphasis added).
21. Ibid., 267.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., 268.
24. Dubois, supra note 16, at 584-6 (emphasis added).
25. J. R. Gharpure (trans.), Collection of Hindu Law Texts: Yajñavalkya Smrti with Mitakshara, Viramitrodaya and Dipalika: Wyawaharadhayay, Chapters VIII-XXV (Bombay, 1939), II, IV, 1354.
26. Arthur Steele, Summary of the Laws and Customs of the Hindoo Castes Within the Dekhun Provinces Subject to the Presidency of Bombay Chiefly Affecting Civil Suits (Bombay, 1827).
27. Ibid. II (quoting Minute of the Hon. the Governor, 22 July 1823).
28. Ibid., 117 (emphasis added).
29. Ibid., 116-17.
30. Ibid., 123.
31. Ibid., 215.
32. Ibid., 219.
33. Ibid., 230.
34. Rulings of the Court of Sudder Udalut, Contained in the Decisions Passed By Them During the Years 1858 to 1862.
35. Steele, supra note 23, at 165.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid., 187.
38. Ibid., 186.
39. Doe Dem. Hencower Bye v. Hanscower Bye, 2 Morley 133, 134 (1818).
40. Vencatachellum v. Vencatasamy, S.U. Madras 65 (1856) (emphasis added).
41. Steele, supra note 23, at 151.
42. Ibid., 165 (emphasis added).
43. Shida v. Sunshidapa, S.D.A. Bombay 137, 139 (1851).
44. Sir Thomas Strange, Hindu Law: Principally with Reference to Such Portions of It as Concern the Administration of Justice in the King's Courts in India (2 Vols) (London, 1830). Only Sir Francis Macnaghten's Considerations on the Hindu Law as it is Current in Bengal (Serampore, 1824), which discusses the Dayabhaga law of Bengal, is older.
45. Sir Thomas Strange, Hindu Law: Principally with Reference to Such Portions of It as Concern the Administration of Justice in the King's Courts in India (2 Vols) (London, 1830). Only Sir Francis Macnaghten's Considerations on the Hindu Law as it is Current in Bengal (Serampore, 1824), which discusses the Dayabhaga law of Bengal, is older.
46. Ibid., I, 35 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
47. Ibid., I, 36.
48. Ibid., I, 48.
49. Ibid., II, 128.
50. Ibid., I, 164.
51. Ibid.
52. 1 Morley 474.
53. Doe Dem. Radamoney Raur v. Neelmoney Doss, 1 Ind. Dec. (O.S.) 190 (1792) (S.C. Bengal).
54. Maha Ranee Bussunt Koomaree v. Maha Ranee Kummul Koomaree, 8 Ind. Dec. (O.S.) 129, 130 (1843) (S.D.A. Bengal).
55. Strange, supra note 41, at II, 269.
56. Ragavacharry v. Seenummaul, Madras S.D.A. 20, 21 (1831).
57. Ibid.
58. Mussummaut Rubbee Koor v. Jewut Ram, 6 I.D. (O.S.) 608 (S.D.A. Bengal, 1818).
59. Debnath Roy Chowdree v. Degumberee Debea, 13 I.D. (O.S.) 149, 150-1 (1856) (S.D.A. Bengal) (emphasis added).
60. Sumanta Banerjee, 'The "Beshya" and the "Babu": Prostitute and Her Clientele in 19th Century Bengal', Economic and Political Weekly (1993), 2461, 2465 (citations omitted).
61. Strange, supra note 41, at I, 163 (citations omitted).
62. Tara Munnee Dossea v. Motee Buneanee, 2 Ind. Dec. (O.S.) 247 (1846) (S.D.A. Bengal).
63. Ibid.
64. Slavery was also recognized under the 'Moossulman' law. See Sir W. H. Macnaghten, Principles and Precedents of Moohummudan Law (4th ed.) (Madras, 1876) (1825).
65. Strange, supra note 41, at II, 66.
66. Ibid., II, 323.
67. Ibid., II, 137 (citations omitted).
68. Ibid., II, 156.
69. Steele, supra note 23, at 201.
70. Strange, supra note 41, at II, 229.
71. Ibid., II, 230 (emphasis added).
72. Mussammaut Chutroo v. Mussummaut Jussa, 6 Ind. Dec. (O.S.) 818 (1822) (S.D.A. Bengal).
73. Ibid., 819-20.
74. Ibid., 820.
75. S.D.A. Bombay 1 (1835).
76. Ibid., 2.
77. Ibid., 4.
78. Ibid., 3 (emphasis added).
79. Ibid., 4.
80. See Bombay Regulation XIV of 1827, Sections I and XXXIII; Yemajee v. Luximon, S.F.A. Bombay 35 (1829) (child stealing); Oosman's Case, 4 S.F.A. Bombay 29 (1855) (child stealing); Lubdheechund's Case, S.F.A. Bombay 275 (1857) (child stealing). Jiwna's Case, 1 S.F.A. Bombay 183 (1861); Sukoo's Case, 6 S.F.A. Bombay 543 (1856) (receipt of a stolen child).
81. Nana's Case, 1 S.F.A. Bombay 34 (1854).
82. Royoor Mahalutchmee v. Royoor Ramanah, S.F.U. Madras 323 (1856).
83. Mootcheanee v. Gopee Bhaira, S.F.U. Madras 20, 20-1 (1854-5).
84. See, e.g., Mussamaut Punchum v. Sheik Mudaree, 1 R.N.A. 337 (1817); Khutela v. Musst. Munna, 2 R.N.A. 66 (1821); Musst. Anjorea v. Musst. Hichnee, 2 R.N.A. 308 (1824); Musst. Rikteea v. Hoolasee, 2 R.N.A. 389 (1825); Govt. v. Dursun, 2 R.N.A. 447 (1826); Ullahoodeen v. Waris Khyaut, 4 R.N.A. 47 (1831); Cy-Chang Cossyanee v. He-er, 5 R.N.A. 30 (1836); Govt. v. Mussamut Aseea, 5 R.NA. 57 (1837); Sonamonee Bewah v. Purbee Aorut, 6 R.N.A. 322 (1850).
85. Govt. v. Golab Peshagur, 6 R.N.A. 4 (1841).
86. Govt. v. Mussamut Gourmonee Peshagur, R.N.A. 630 (1853).
87. Govt. v. Sheikh Shetabdee, R.N.A. 643 (1853).
88. Govt. v. Mussamut Amirun, R.N.A. 343 (1858).
89. Ibid., 343-4.
90. Ibid., 369.
91. Ibid., 385.
92. OIOC L/P&J/2/1214 at 26-7.
93. OIOC L/P&J/3/297 at 89.
94. OIOC L/P&J/3/1214 at 430-2.
95. OIOC L/P&J/3/1214 at 433.
96. OIOC L/P&J/3/1214 at 574-5.
97. A Penal Code Prepared by the Indian Law Commissioners and Published by Command of the Governor General of India in Council (Calcutta, 1837), 91.
98. Indian Law Commissioners, Notes on the Report of the Indian Law Commissioners, Dated 23rd July 1846, On the Indian Penal Code (London, 1848), 127.
99. John D. Mayne, A Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage (6th ed.) (Madras, 1900) 61 (citations omitted).
100. S. V. Ketkar, The History of Caste in India (Ithaca, 1909), 15.
101. W. Crooke, The Tribes and Castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh (4 Vols) (Calcutta, 1896).
102. R. E. Enthoven, The Tribes and Castes of Bombay (3 Vols) (New Delhi, 1990) (1922).
103. H. H. Risley, The Tribes and Castes of Bengal (2 Vols) (Calcutta, 1891).
104. R. V. Russell, The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India (4 Vols) (London, 1916).
105. Edgar Thurston, Castes and Tribes of South India (7 Vols) (Madras, 1909).
106. Ibid., II, 126.
107. Ibid., II, 127-8.
108. Enthoven, supra note 98, at I, 146.
109. Russell, supra note 100, at III, 381.
110. Thurston, supra note 101, at II, 127.
111. Ibid., II, 128.
112. Ibid., VI, 293.
113. Enthoven, supra note 98, at I, 146.
114. Ibid.
115. N. M. Penzer, 'Sacred Prostitution (Appendix IV)', in C. H. Tawney (trans.), The Ocean of Story (10 Vols) (London, 1924), I, 254 (emphasis added).
116. Ibid., 254-5.
117. Gangabai v. Anant, 13 Bom. 690 (1889).
118. Mayne, supra note 95, at 255.
119. Raymond West and Johann Georg Bühler, A Digest of the Hindu Law of Inheritance, Partition, and Adoption: Embodying the Replies of the Sâstris in the Courts of the Bombay Presidency (3rd ed.) (Bombay, 1884), II, 933.
120. Thomas Lumisden Strange, A Manual of Hindoo Law as Prevailing in the Presidency of Madras (2nd ed.) (Madras, 1863), 25.
121. 4 Bom. 545 (1880).
122. Ibid., 546.
123. Ibid., 549.
124. Ibid., 553.
125. Ibid., 567.
126. Ibid., 567-70.
127. Ibid., 571.
128. Ibid.
129. Ibid., 572.
130. Ghasiti v. Umrao Jan, 21 Cal. 149, 156 (1893) (Privy Council).
131. See Hira Naikin v. Radha Naikin, 37 Bom. 116 (1912). Doubts were expressed when a dancing girl on her death-bed adopted a daughter, designated her in a will as the beneficiary of her estate, and died a few days later. However, the adopted daughter's claim to the estate was upheld on the basis of the will, rather than on the basis of the custom of adoption. See Manjamma v. Sheshgirirao, 26 Bom. 491 (1902).
132. 11 Mad. 393 (1889).
133. Ibid., 396 (emphasis added).
134. Ibid., 400.
135. Ibid., 401.
136. Ibid.
137. Muttukannu v. Paramasami, 12 Mad. 214 (1889).
138. Kamalakshi v. Ramasami Chetti, 19 Mad. 127 (1895); Sanjivi v. Jalajakshi, 21 Mad. 229 (1897); Gangamma v. Kuppammal, 1938 Mad. 789 (1937).
139. Kamalakshi v. Ramasami Chetti, 19 Mad. 127 (1895); Sanjivi v. Jalajakshi, 21 Mad. 229 (1897); Gangamma v. Kuppammal, 1938 Mad. 789 (1937).
140. Sanjivi v. Jalajakshi, 21 Mad. 229, 231 (1897). But see Nagamuthu Pillai v. Dasi Sundaram, 32 I.C. 743, 744 (1915) (adoption upheld where the dancing girl 'took the girl in to help her in her household duties out of compassion for the helpless child and . . . did not intend to force her to a life of prostitution').
141. Shanmugam Pillai v. Krishnaveni, M.W.N. 288 (1931); Veeranna v. Sarasiratnam, 71 M.L.J. 53 (1936).
142. 23 M.L.J. 493 (1912).
143. Ibid., 495.
144. Ibid.
145. Ibid.
146. Ibid., 494-5.
147. Chinna Ummayi v. Tegarai Chetti, 1 Mad. 168 (1876).
148. Ibid., 170.
149. Ibid.
150. Kamalam v. Sadagopa Sami, 1 Mad. 357 (1878).
151. Tárá Náikin v. Náná Lakshman, 14 Bom. 20, 23 (1889).
152. Vengamuthu v. Pandavéswara Gurukal, 6 Mad. 151, 153 (1882).
153. Sir Gooroodass Banerjee, The Hindu Law of Marriage and Stridhana (Delhi, 1984), 31 (1915).
154. Doe Dem. Saummoney Dossee v. Nemychurn Doss, 2 Ind. Dec. (O.S.) 577 (1851).
155. Rajkoomaree Dassee v. Goolabee Dassee, 14 S.D.A. Bengal 1895 (1858).
156. Matunginee Dabee v. Joykallee Dabee, 14 W.R. 23 (1869).
157. Ibid.
158. Moniran Kolita v. Keri Kolitani, 5 Cal. 776 (1880) (Privy Council). See also Dolores F. Chew, 'The Case of the "Unchaste" Widow: Constructing Gender in 19th-Century Bengal', Resources for Feminist Research/Documentation sur la recherche féministe 22 (1993), 31.
159. Mussamat Ganga Jati v. Ghasita, 1 All. 46, 49 (1875) (per Oldfield, J.).
160. Advyapa v. Rudrava, 4 Bomb. 104, 122 (1879).
161. Kojiyadu v. Lakshmi, 5 Mad. 149 (1881); Vedammal v. Vedanayaga Mudaliar, 31 Mad. 100 (1907).
162. Angammal v. Venkata Reddy, 26 Mad. 509 (1902).
163. Ram Nath Tolapattro v. Durga Sundari Debi, 5 Cal. 776 (1879).
164. Ramananda v. Raikishori Barmani, 22 Cal. 347 (1894); Sundari Letani v. Pitambari Letani, 32 Cal. 871 (1905).
165. Sivasangu v. Minal, 12 Mad. 277 (1888); In the Goods of Kamineymoney Bewah, 21 Cal. 697 (1894); Bhutnath Mondol v. Secretary of State for India in Council, 10 C.W.N. 1085 (1906).
166. In the Goods of Kamineymoney Bewah, 21 Cal. 697 (1894).
167. Sivasangu v. Minal, 12 Mad. 277, 284 (1888). In Arunagiri Mudali v. Ranganayaki Ammal, 21 Mad. 40 (1897), the Madras High Court held that the Hindu law applicable to the estate of a woman who had married two husbands was inapplicable to the self-acquired property of a 'prostitute'.
168. Narain Das v. Tirlok Tiwari, 29 All. 4, 7 (1906).
169. Chatoo Kurmi v. Rajaram Tewari, 11 C.L.J. 124, 125 (1909) (Order of Reference).
170. Hari Lal Sinha v. Tripura Charan Ray, 17 C.W.N. 679, 689 (1913).
171. Ibid., 686-7.
172. Sundari Dossee v. Nemye Charan Das, 6 C.L.J. 372, 373 (1907).
173. Subbaraya Pillai v. Ramasami Pillai, 23 Mad. 171 (1899). See also Bisheshur v. Mata Ghulam, N.W.P.H.C.R. 300 (1870).
174. Narumayya Chetti v. Tiruvangadathan Chetti, 24 M.L.J. 223, 227 (1912).
175. Mayne, supra note 95, at 60-1 (citations omitted).
176. West and Bühler, supra note 115, at II, 886.
177. Strange, supra note 116, at 89.
178. H. S. Cunningham, A Digest of Hindu Law as Administered in the Courts of the Madras Presidency (Madras, 1877), 112.
179. Chalakonda Alasani v. Chalakonda Ratnachalam, 2 M.H.C.R. 56 (1864).
180. Ibid.; Boologam v. Swornam, 4 Mad. 330 (1881). The practice of applying the Hindu law to the succession customs of dancing girls continued well into the twentieth century. See, e.g., Subramania Ayyar v. Rathnavelu Chetty, 41 Mad. 44, 73 (1917); Narayan Pundlik v. Laxman Daji, 51 Bom. 784 (1927).
181. Kamakshi v. Nagaratnam, 5 M.H.C.R. 161, 164-5 (1870).
182. Unpublished case referred to in Note at Chalakonda Alasani v. Chalakonda Ratnachellam, 2 M.H.C.R. 56, 78 (1864).
183. Ibid., 57.
184. Ibid., 78. A similar view was adopted in Boologam v. Swornum, 4 Mad. 330 (1881).
185. Strange, supra note 116, at 89; Reginald Thompson, A Manual of Hindu Law (and ed.) (Madras, 1878), 102.
186. Golápchandra Sarkár, Sástrí, The Hindu Law of Adoption: Tagore Law Lectures -1888 (Calcutta, 1891), 458.
187. 13 Mad. 133 (1889).
188. The defendant, 'though not formally adopted by Pedda Narasi, was introduced by her into the temple and [had] become a deva dasi.' Ibid., 134.
189. Ibid.
190. Ibid.
191. See, e.g., Strange, supra note 116, at 89.
192. Chandrareka v. Secretary of State for India, 14 Mad. 163, 165 (1890).
193. Tara v. Krishna, 31 Bom. 495, 497 (1907).
194. Ibid., 501.
195. See supra note 156.
196. Tara v. Krishna, 31 Bom. 495, 506-10 (1907).
197. Ibid., 510.
198. Sarna Moyee Bewa v. Secretary of State for India in Council, 25 Cal. 254, 257-8 (1897). See also In the Goods of Kamineymoney Bewah, 21 Cal. 697, 701 (1894).
199. Meenakshi v. Muniandi Panikkan, 38 Mad. 1144, 1145 (1914).
200. West and Bühler, supra note 116, at II, 601.
201. Viralakshmi Ammal v. Dorasinga Pilla, 29 I.C. 974, 975 (1914).
202. Kokilambal v. Sundarammal, 21 M.L.W. 259 (1924).
203. Gangamma v. Kuppammal, Mad. 789, 800-1 (1938).
204. Banerjee, supra note 149, at 458-9.
205. Subbaratna Mudali v. Balakrishnaswami Naidu, 33 M.L.J. 207, 208-9 (1917) (emphasis added).
206. Ibid., 211. See also Narayan Pundlik v. Laxman Daji, 51 Bom. 784 (1924); Shanmugathammal v. Gomathi Ammal, 67 M.L.J. 861 (1934).
207. Regina v. Arunáchellam, 1 Mad. 164, 165 (1876). See also Queen-Empress v. Baku, 24 Bom. 287, 293 (1899); Public Prosecutor v. Kannammal, 24 M.L.J. 211, 217 (1913).
208. Queen-Empress v. Baku, 24 Bom. at 293 (1899).
209. Regina v. Jailí Bhávin, 6 B.H.C.R. 60 (1869).
210. Ibid., 60-1.
211. Ibid., 61.
212. Ibid., 62.
213. Ibid., 63.
214. Ibid., 64.
215. Ibid.
216. Ex parte Padmavati, 5 M.H.C.R. 415 (1870).
217. Ibid., 415-16.
218. Ibid., 416.
219. Ibid., 417.
220. See, e.g., Regina v. Arunáchellam, 1 Mad. 164 (1876); Srinivasa v. Annasami, 15 Mad. 41 (1891); Emperor v. Sahebava Birappa, 27 Bom. L.R. 1022 (1925).
221. Public Prosecutor v. Kannammal, 24 M.L.J. 211, 213 (1913).
222. Kamalakshi v. Ramasami Chetti, 19 Mad. 127, 128 (1895).
223. Srinivasa v. Annasami, 15 Mad. 41, 41-2 (1891).
224. Ibid., 43. This position was reiterated when the case returned on petition to the Madras High Court. Srinivasa v. Annasami, 15 Mad. 323, 327 (1892).
225. Emperor v. Bhimde, 7 Bom. L.R. 562, 565 (1905).
226. Srinivasa v. Annasami, 15 Mad. 323, 329-30 (1892) (Parker, J.) (emphasis in original).
227. Venku v. Mahalinga, 11 Mad. at 402 (emphasis in orginal).
228. Ibid.
229. Ibid., 402 (emphasis added).
230. Queen-Empress v. Ramanna, 12 Mad. 273, 276 (1888) (per Muttasami Ayyar, J.).
231. Public Prosecutor v. Kannammal, 24 M.L.J. 211 (1913).
232. Ibid., 214.
233. Ibid., 216.
234. Ibid.
235. Ibid., 222 (per Sundara Aiyar, J.).
236. Queen-Empress v. Papa Sani, 23 Mad. 159 (1899).
237. Queen-Empress v. Tippa, 16 Born. 737, 740-1 (1892).
238. Ibid., 742.
239. In Emperor v. Parmeshwari Subbi, 22 Bom. L.R. 894 (1920), the Bombay High Court ruled that the gejjee ceremony performed on a girl did not constitute an offense under Section 372 because the ceremony was shown not to foreclose the possibility of marriage.
240. Queen-Empress v. Basava, 15 Mad. 75, 75-6 (1891).
241. Ibid., 76.
242. Ibid., 77.
243. Dowlath Bee v. Shaik Ally, 5 M.H.C.R. 473, 475 (1870).
244. Ibid., 476.
245. See also Queen v. Mussamut Bhutia, N.W.P.H.C.R. 294, 298 (1875).
246. Dowlath Bee v. Shaik Ally, 5 M.H.C.R. at 476.
247. Ibid., 477.
248. Hardeo v. Empress, 1880 P.R. 13, 14 (1880).
249. Ibid.
250. Queen-Empress v. Sukee Raur, 21 Cal. 97 (1893).
251. Ibid., 102 (emphasis added).
252. See, e.g., Queen v. Nourjan and Jaggat Tara, 6 B.L.R. App. 34, 35-7 (1870) (per Jackson, J.); Hardeo v. Empress, 1880 P.R. 13, 15 (1880).
253. Khushala v. Empress, 1880 P.R. 48, 51 (1880).
254. Crown v. Mohubbut, 1873 P.R. 19 (1873).
255. Khushala v. Empress, 1880 P.R. 48 (1880); Mula v. Empress, 1887 P.R. 18 (1887).
256. Deputy Legal Remembrancer v. Karuna Baistobi, 21 Cal. 164 (1894); Queen-Empress v. Chanda, 18 All. 24 (1895); King-Emperor v. Mussamut Sunder, 1 A.L.J. 559 (1904).
257. Public Prosecutor v. Maddila Mutyalu, 35 M.L.J. 157 (1918).
258. Ibid.
259. Ibid., 158.
260. Ibid., 159.
261. See note 3. Kay Jordan provides an account of legislation in the post-Independence period. See also Anandhi S., 'Representing Devadasis: "Dasigal Mosavalai" as a Radical Text', Economic and Political Weekly (Annual Number) (1991), 739.
262. T. Ramachendriar, Collection of the Decisions of the High Courts and Privy Council on the Law of Succession, Maintenance, &c. Applicable to Dancing Girls and their issues, Prostitutes not belonging to the Dancing Girls' community, Illegitimate Sons and Bastards, and Illatom affiliation Up to December 1891 (Madras, 1892), v.
263. M. Sundara Raj, supra note 3, at 126-7.
264. Legislative Assembly Debates (Official Report), Vol. IV, Part I (30 Jan., 1924 to 18 Feb., 1924) (Delhi, 1924), 447.
265. Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act (Act V of 1924).
266. Bombay Legislative Council Debates, Vol. 39 (Bombay, 1934), pp. 1337-8.
267. Ibid., 1337.
268. Ibid., 1339.
269. Ibid., 1700 (Bill No. XXVII of 1933, Section 2(a)).
270. Ibid., 1346.
271. The Bombay Code, Vol. II, 1947 (6th ed.) (Bombay, 1971).
272. The Madras Code Vol. III. Unrepealed Madras Acts 1922 to 1948 (Madras, 1958), pp. 795-7.