________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.org
Acharya Shri Kailassagarsuri Gyanmandir
૪૧૫
Acharay Sutra's and the examples of various holy men and women who have taken the orders. To argue that even after th: Diksha persons return to civil life and that therefore the present defendant should be forced to do so, is to class her with those who could not stind their vows and b.ca ne patit and such an argument cannot prevail.
With regard to Varghola I do not think that can bo called an essential. Even in Hindu marriages the absence of Varghoda does not make the marriage illegal and much less can the absence of Varghoda would make renunciation void. Then with regard to their being no Guru to Diksha according Pakhisutra can be taken in the presenco of Dev and mind. In the present case it was taken in the temple and the defendant took vows calling to wiiness the Dev and the Atma and such a Diksha can never be recalled unless the person taking it becomes a Patit. With regard to taking it in forest I do not think such a plea can prevail as the narration of shloka includes a temple. Thus all the objections taken by the plaintiff as regard the factim Diksha are useless, the Diksha is proved to have been taken by defendant no. 1 bonafide and for the good of her soul and not as a mere pretext and therefore no restitution of congugal rights can be allowed. Even the plaintiff in his rejoinder states that if Diksha is proved he bows down to it but only with respect to others and not to the defendant. I do not see any difference between others and the defendant and fact of being once the wife of tho plaintiff does not disentitle her to the same reverence as given to others. This dis
For Private and Personal Use Only
