Sri Rama was a great and just king of Ayodhya. There were some rumors reported by his subjects against the purity of Lady Sita.

So, as per the Raja Dharma, Rama had to banish Sita. But was it against Raja Dharma when Rama and his brother were witnesses to Sita's purity (no matter what the episode of Agni Pariksha (trial-by-fire) was)? How is it justified for a just king like Rama not to protect Lady Sita when there were witnesses proving her innocence?

Please note that there was no evidence in favor of the rumors spread by the people. Was it justified to ignore the witnesses of the trial-by-fire? Was it not against Raja Dharma? Was being unjust part of Raja Dharma?

  • 1
    possible duplicate of Did Lord Rama exile Maa Sita?
    – senshin
    Commented Jun 22, 2014 at 5:27
  • The linked duplicate does not ask the same question, but the answer does cover why Rama banished Sita despite witnessing her successful trial by fire.
    – senshin
    Commented Jun 22, 2014 at 5:28
  • @senshin: I cannot find the that point. Commented Jun 22, 2014 at 5:35
  • "Now, yes. Sita was again sent to exile because some local men of Ayodhya nagari expelled rumours that she is not pure. Forced to follow his dharma, Lord Rama had to send Sita to exile again." If this doesn't answer your question / you're looking for more detail, feel free to edit your question and mention the points where you need clarification.
    – senshin
    Commented Jun 22, 2014 at 5:37
  • 1
    Well, in that case, I honestly do not understand what exactly you are asking. I will retract my close vote, but you should consider trying to better explain how this isn't a duplicate, because I (at least) am not seeing it.
    – senshin
    Commented Jun 22, 2014 at 5:39

7 Answers 7


I will try to answer your question despite the comments pointing to a certain other answer.

It is not about justification, but about decision making. If there were rumors about Sita Devi then that could potentially reduce respect to her king by their subjects and eventually lead to lesser able administration. As a king, Rama had to sacrifice his personal life for his role as a king - but it is to be remembered that for the rest of his reign, he did not think of another woman either. Which is what makes him so admirable.

  • 1
    I think this answer the question and it justifies Raj Dharma. So, was it decision of both or lopsided? Commented Jul 30, 2014 at 3:40
  • that I do not know for sure :)
    – LVS
    Commented Jul 30, 2014 at 18:02
  • 2
    @doptimusprime It has been said (in Padma Purana) that Sita expressed a desire to spend time in muni Ashrams. So it was both her desire and Rama's decision for her to go to the forest. Remember that Sita's exile happened almost towards the end of Rama avatara. Rama had already reigned for more than 10,000 yrs by the time she was exiled. He remained on the earth for a few more years to train Lava and Kusha and then left for Vaikuntha.
    – user1195
    Commented Feb 7, 2015 at 12:28
  • 2
    @moonstar2001 Can you cite your reference of Rama ruling Ayodhya for more than 10,000 years? I am very intrigued by such a fact and hope to get a better understanding of such phenomenal life span.
    – SoundStage
    Commented Apr 14, 2016 at 12:38
  • 1
    @doptimusprime it is not an answer, it is just a comment and a self opinion, not what Scriptures have told. You must not tick questions as you like, it can get misleading to readers and reduce quality of Hinduism Stack Exchange.
    – user14995
    Commented Apr 6, 2018 at 13:22

UTTARA KANDA is a PRAKSHIPTA - an insertion made at a later date. As the episode of banishment of Sita finds place in this Kanda, it has to be rejected.

In view of the following contradictions in the UTTARA KANDA, I think the entire Uttara Kanda is a PRAKSHIPTA, an insertion made at a latter date.

  1. The story of Srimad Ramayana ends with Sri Rama's coronation as the King of Kosala Kingdom. Sage Valmiki describes in the concluding chapter of Yuddha Kanda that having enjoyed the kingship for ten thousand years, Sri Rama performed a hundred horse-sacrifices. It was described very briefly about the happy life of the people of Kosala kingdom during the reign of Sri Rama.

    सर्वे लक्षणसम्पन्नाः सर्वे धर्मपरायणाः || दशवर्षसहस्राणि रामो राज्यमकारयत् | (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 106 Sloka)

    All the people were endowed with excellent characteristics. All were engaged in virtue. Rama was engaged in the kingship thus for Ten thousand years.

  2. This was followed by PHALA SRUTI. In the fag end slokas of Yuddha Kanda PHALA SRUTI, the result of reading Srimad Ramayana, was described.

    धर्मयं यशस्यमायुष्यं राज्ञां च विजाअवहम् || आदिकाव्यमिदं चार्षं पुरा वाल्मीकिना कृतम् | पठेद्यः शृणुयाल्लोके नरः पापात्प्रमुच्यते || (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 107-108 Slokas)

    In this world, whoever person reads and listens to this foremost lyric derived from the speech of a sage, which is endowed with righteousness, conferring fame and longevity, fetching victory to kings and as written at first by Valmiki, that person is delivered from all misfortune.

    श्रुत्वा रामायणमिदं दीर्घमायिश्च विन्दति | रामस्य विजयं चैव सर्वमक्लिष्ठकर्मणः || (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 112 Sloka)

    On hearing this epic of Ramayana and all the episode of victory of Rama, who was unweary in his actions, a person gets longevity to life.

    विनायकाश्च शाम्यन्ति गृहे तिष्ठन्ति यस्य वै | विजयेत महीं राजा प्रवासि स्वस्तिमान् भवेत् || (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 116 Sloka)

    Whoever carefully listens to the epic in his house, all obstacles come to an end. A king conquers the earth. A person staying away from home, fares well.

    In all Hindu Paraayana texts it is a tradition to incorporate the PHALA SRUTI, the result of reading a Sacred Text, in the end of any PAARAYANA but not in the middle.

    Hence, if the PHALA SRUTI was added at the end of Yuddha Kanda of Srimad Ramayana, it indicates that Sage Valmiki in fact closed his writing on Srimad Ramayana with that Sarga. Consequently, UTTARA KANDA can be concluded to be a PRAKSHIPA, and insertion made at a latter date,

  3. While trying to stop Ravana in ordering killing of Sri Hanuma, Vibhishana says there was no precedence, of killing messenger (Sundara Kanda).

    वैरूप्याम् अन्गेषु कश अभिघातो | मौण्ड्यम् तथा लक्ष्मण सम्निपातः | एतान् हि दूते प्रवदन्ति दण्डान् | वधः तु दूतस्य न नः श्रुतो अपि || (Sundara Kanda 52 Sarga 15 Sloka)

    Some of the punishments to an envoy are-deforming the limbs, striking with a whip, shaving the head and impressing marks on the body. Indeed, we have not heard at any time of killing a messenger.

    Vibhishana was saying just One month before Great Battle that took place in Lanka. He was saying that till then there was no precedence of Killing a messenger.

    However, it was narrated in the 13 th Sarga of Uttara Kanda about killing of the messenger of Kubera by Ravana. This incident stated to had been took place at the time of Ravana's commencement of wars on Devatas, Yakshas, Gandharvas, etc, at his younger age.

    Had Ravana really killed a messenger of Kubera, Vibhishana might not had said that there was no precedence of Killing a messenger.

    Hence, the Uttara Kanda is PRAKSHIPTA

  4. In the fag end slokas of Yuddha Kanda it was described that While Rama was ruling the kingdom, people survived for thousands of years, with thousands of their progeny, all free of illness and grief. And, old people did not perform obsequies concerning youngsters.

    निर्दस्युरभवल्लोको नानर्थः कन् चिदस्पृशत् | न च स्म वृद्धा बालानां प्रेतकार्याणि कुर्वते || (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 100 Sloka)

    The world was bereft of thieves and robberies. No one felt worthless nor did old people perform obsequies concerning youngsters.

    It is said by 'Valmiki' that in Sri Rama's reign there were no premature deaths in his kingdom. It would be unbearable to a father, if his son dies before him. Any father wishes to die in the hands of his son. It was stated in above sloka that while Sri Rama was ruling the kingdom of Kosala, no youngster died before his father died consequently old people did not perform obsequies concerning youngsters.

    However, a premature death of a son of a Brahmin was described in the 73 - 76 Sargas of Uttara Kanda.

    It happened that a certain Brahman's son died in a premature death. The bereaved father carried his body to the gate of the king's palace, and placing it there, cried aloud and bitterly reproached Sri Rama for the death of his son, saying that it must be the consequence of some sin committed within his realm, and that the king himself was guilty if he did not punish it; and finally threatened to end his life there by sitting on a dharana (hunger-strike) against Sri Rama unless his son was restored to life.

    Sri Rama thereupon consulted his council of eight learned Rishis, and Narada amongst them told him that some Shudra among his subjects must have been performing Tapasya (ascetic exercises), and thereby going against Dharma (sacred law), for according to it, the practice of Tapasya was proper to the twice-born alone, while the duty of the Shudras consisted only in the service of the "twice-born". Sri Rama was thus convinced that it was the sin committed by a Shudra in transgressing Dharma in that manner, which was responsible for the death of the Brahmin boy.

    So, Sri Rama mounted his aerial car and searched the countryside for the culprit. At last, in a wild region far away to the south he espied a man practicing rigorous austerity of a certain kind. He approached the man, and with no more ado than to enquire of him. That person inform himself that he was a Shudra, by name Sambuka, who was practicing Tapasya with a view to going to heaven in his own earthly person. Sri Rama without so much as a warning, expostulation or the like addressed to him, cut off his head.

    At that very moment the dead Brahman boy in distant Ayodhya began to breathe again. Here in the wilds the Gods rained flowers on the king from their joy at his having prevented a Shudra from gaining admission to their celestial abode through the power of the Tapasya which he had no right to perform. They also appeared before Sri Rama and congratulated him on his deed. In answer to his prayer to them to revive the dead Brahman boy lying at the palace gate in Ayodhya, they informed him that he had already come to life.

    This episode of Sambuka described in 73 - 76 Sargas of Uttara Kanda contradicts the statement of Sage Valmiki that in Sri Rama's reign there were no premature deaths.

    Thus, UTTARA KANDA can be concluded to be a PRAKSHIPA, and insertion made at a latter date,

  5. Srimad Ramayana was written much earlier to Mahabharata. In the 272-289 Sections of Vana Parva of Mahabharata, the story of Sri Rama was narrated to Yuddhistara by Sage Markandeya. Though the story contains minor variations compared to the story told in the Srimad Ramayana, those episodes describe the story of Sri Rama in full.

    However, the sage Markandeya ends the story of Sri Rama in 289 Section of Vana Parva of Mahabharata with the coronation of Sri Rama as the king of Kosala Kingdom. No mention was made therein the story of UTTARA KANDA.

  • 2
    It is very well researched. I read part of Brahmin's son's premature death. But I wonder how a Shudra is not allowed to do tapasya. When a Kshatriya like Vishwakarma can become Brahmarishi, then why not shudra. This seems some deliberate corruption. What do you say about this? Commented Oct 16, 2015 at 3:19
  • 3
    I already said that the UTTARA KANDA has to be rejected in its entirety. Commented Oct 16, 2015 at 3:53
  • 1
    It would be interesting to find clues to verify if 'UTTARA KANDA' was composed by sage Valmiki himself or was it added after his lifetime. Thank you much for presenting a well researched answer. You have my vote.
    – WeShall
    Commented Sep 17, 2016 at 16:54
  • 1
    there can always be an exception.. apart from that single premature-death incident, which Rama rectified (son came back alive), there were none other. that doesn't make it a contradiction and cause for rejection. Maybe Vibhishana didn't know about the earlier messenger-murder, or he was saying 'it is unheard of' in the sense of 'it is not allo.wed', not that he had never heard of it. When Markandeya's account has minor variations it is "just minor", but when he omits uttara khanda, it "never happened" ?
    – ram
    Commented Sep 20, 2017 at 2:01
  • @SrimannarayanaKV "contradicts the statement of Sage Valmiki that in Sri Rama's reign there were no premature deaths." - It doesn't say there were no premature deaths. It says no obsequies were performed. And the brahmin boy was revived, so no obsequies were performed since he didn't die. Thus, there is no contradiction.
    – Ikshvaku
    Commented Jul 29, 2022 at 21:59

Leela of Abandoning Godesses Sita also illustrates the greatness of 'Raam Naam'. By the mere chanting of Raam Naam and singing their virtues even animals and birds become so powerful that they gain the power of cursing Gods. Lord Ram and Sita although are beyond the rules of Karma but still act as being in Karmic influenee. Similar is the case here...

This story comes in Padma Puran. There were 2 parrots living around Valmiki ashram. They used to hear some verses of Ramayan when Valmiki used to teach verses to his disciples. Thus due to continuous hearing they mastered the verses. One day they came Mithila and were singing the verses. Sita heard them:

Padma Puran Chapter 57 "Former Birth Of Washerman"

41-53. Lucky is that queen Janaki (i.e. Sita), > having a very attractive form, who will gladly enjoy with him for a myriad years. O beautiful lady, who are you? What is your name that you cleverly and respectfully ask me to narrate (the account) of Rama?" Hearing these words, Janaki, telling the couple of birds about the charming and enticing (story of) her birth, said to
them: "I am that Janaki, the daughter of Janaka, whom you mentioned. I shall truly release you when that very charming
Rama comes to me; not otherwise-—being (just) allured by your words! I shall caress you. You, having (i.e. speaking) sweet
words, stay happily (with me)." Hearing these words they trembled and were frightened. They were mutually (i.e. both) afraid; (and) said this to Janaki: "O good lady, we are birds, living in forests and resorting to trees. We wander everywhere. We would not get happiness (merely by staying) at home. I am pregnant. Having gone to my place and having given birth to sons (i.e. young ones) I shall come (back). I have told you the truth." (Though) thus addressed by the female parrot, she did
not release her. Then her husband (i.e. the male parrot), eager, and with his face hung down spoke to her: "Sita, release my wife. How do you keep this my beautiful wife? We shall go to the forest and shall happily move in the forest. My charming wife would be (i.e. is) pregnant. Having performed her (i.e. after her) delivery I shall come to you, O lovely one?" Thus,
addressed, she said to him: "O you very intelligent one, you can gladly go. I shall keep this happy one, doing what is dear to me, near me." Thus addressed, the bird was unhappy; and full of tenderness, he said to her: "Those words which are uttered by the meditating saints are true: (The words are:)

54-56. 'One should not speak, one should not speak. One should remain by resorting to silence. Otherwise, due to the
blemish in one's utterance, the mad one would be fettered.' Had we not talked (to each other) on this tree, how would we have been bound? Therefore, one should resort to silence." Saying so, he spoke to her: "Obeautiful lady, O Sita, I shall not live
without this wife of me. Therefore, O you charming one, leave her."

57-66. Though admonished with various words, she did not release her. The (parrot's) wife, who was angry, and miserable, then cursed Janaka's daughter: "As you are separating me from my husband, in the same way you will be, when pregnant, separated from Rama." When she, the afflicted one, was repeatedly > saying like this, her life departed due to misery, full of the distress of her husband. For her who was repeatedly remember-
ing Rama and uttering (the name) Rama, a divine car properly arrived. The female parrot became luminous when she had gone to heaven. When she died, her husband, that lord of birds, was
extremely angry, and being distressed, fell into Ganga: ''In Rama's city, full of people, I will be born as (a sudra so) that due to my words she will be dejected, and extremely unhappy due to separation (from her husband)." Saying so, he who was
distressed, angry, frightened and shaking due to separation from her, fell into the water of Ganga graced with eddies.
Due to his being angry, due to his being distressed, and due to his having insulted Sita, he obtained very (mean) sudrahood (as he was born as) a washerman named Krodhana. That best bird (or best brahmana) who, doing ill to the great, abandons his life through anger, obtains sudrahood after he dies. That took
place. Due to the words of the washerman she was censured and separated. On account of the curse of the washerman, she was separated (from Rama), and she went to the forest

  • @sv. If a story is present in Purana then at least it can become a Pramana to certain level ... regarding authenticity.. as Padma Purana narrates story of Padma Kalpa ot is possible that it is describing Ramayana of that Kalpa... and also ValmikiRamayana doesn't covered up whole thing... for eg. Present Venkateshwara is based on story of Maya Sita of Ramayana reborn as Padmavati... but ValmikiRamayana doesn't have a concept of Maya Dita at all... so it is based on Puranic accounta... like story present in Skandha Purana and so on..
    – Tezz
    Commented Sep 25, 2016 at 9:23
  • @sv. You are right. Always it happens. When the Pandavas had to suffer greatly, even after devoting them to Vishnu, and more so, after doing the Raajasuya Yagya, then it is saif that they did not collect pure substance for the Yagya and thus suffered. All the Scriptures give justification making a whole new stories. Maybe to overshadow what ram did, the Scriptures composer wrote- Sita wanted to live in Muni Ashram, Sita wanted this that. Ram wanted this, Narad had cursed her, and what not so.
    – user9392
    Commented Sep 8, 2017 at 12:50

Rama himself never doubted lady Sita but it was for the satisfaction of the people of his kingdom. And being an ideal man and ideal king he was supposed to fulfill wishes of people of his kingdom. And how can you say he did not protect his wife? He went to all the way to Lanka like an ideal husband. But Rama is ideal man, means ideal son, ideal brother, ideal husband, ideal father and ideal king. So in every circumstance he behaved the way an ideal man is supposed to behave. Had he not asked Sita to go to live in forests people would have said he was not good king So people will never be satisfied. But he did what could possibly be done to keep his foolish subjects happy.


My first answer was regarding Sita’s first fire test, while they were in Lanka after winning the war.

Regarding Second time fire test

Once The King Rama went for town travel cloak(That no one can know that this is our king) to know what the people are thinking about the kingdom and king, Is there any who unsatisfied with king?

He saw some people who were discussing about Ram-Ravana war, Some people had doubt on sita, Some blamed Rama that he is very Fatuous by accepting Sita after she had stayed in lanka. Rama could not tolerate that majority people had doubt about the holiness of sita.

He believed that if the public have not trust on their king then he is not a good king. He also found that the people of kingdom are unsatisfied with his decision. For public satisfaction he abandoned his wife Sita, because he believed that it’s his duty although he knew about Sita’s holiness.

At the end he told Sita to give fire test again in front of all (the public of avadh) to show her holiness and purity. Rama showed his Raj-Dharma(A duty of King).

Sita did not attempt second fire test as well as she attempted subside by going into the earth(land).


Rama didn't learn the purity of Sita from the fire-test. Rama always knows about the purity of Sita. Thus witness from fire-test is immaterial for Rama. Fire-test is intended for proving chastity of Sita to others. It is evident from the following words of Rama

I have been born in the illustrious family of the high-souled Ikshawkus. Sita hath been born also in the holy family of the great Janaka; gentle Lakshmana, thou knowest how in the solitary forest of Dandaka, Sita was stolen away by Ravana and how have I slain him. At that time even I was stricken with anxiety regarding Sita that how I could take her home since she had resided in the house of the Rakshasas. To secure my confidence, Sita, in your very presence, entered fire. At that time, O Saumitri, fire, carrying sacrificial oblations and the wind of the sky declared Sila's innocence before the celestials. In the presence of all the Rishis and gods, the Sun and Moon announced the innocence of the daughter of Janaka. Indra, the king of the celestials, himself handed over the chaste Sita unto me in the island of Lanka. My mind knoweth Sita as chaste for ever. So, at that time, I came back to Ayodhya with Sita.

[Section 55, Uttara Kanda, Valmiki Ramayana]

It is evident that the citizens of Ayodhya are not the direct audience of Sita's fire-test.

Rama, Lakshmana and very few others may directly witnessed the fact that Sita proved herself by fire-test. But the people of Ayodhya did not witnessed it directly and hence the rumors got originate. It should be noted that a King should not use the strength of words of very few people, including himself, even though they are true, to make such decisions (of keeping Sita intact in kingdom after rumors). The truth should be validated and verified in front of all others also. Such virtue of a king can be observed from the following words of Dushmanta from the Mahabharata. Dushmanta did not accept his wife Sakuntala and his son Bharata until celestials validate it in front of others.

"Vaisampayana continued, 'Sakuntala having spoken to the monarch in this wise, left his presence. But as soon as she had left, a voice from the skies, emanating from no visible shape, thus spoke unto Dushmanta as he was sitting surrounded by his occasional and household priests, his preceptors, and ministers. And the voice said, 'The mother is but the sheath of flesh; the son sprung from the father is the father himself. Therefore, O Dushmanta, cherish thy son, and insult not Sakuntala. O best of men, the son, who is but a form of one's own seed, rescueth (ancestors) from the region of Yama. Thou art the progenitor of this boy. Sakuntala hath spoken the truth. The husband, dividing his body in twain, is born of his wife in the form of son. Therefore, O Dushmanta, cherish, O monarch, thy son born of Sakuntala. To live by forsaking one's living son is a great, misfortune. Therefore, O thou of Puru's race, cherish thy high-souled son born of Sakuntala--And because this child is to be cherished by thee even at our word, therefore shall this thy son be known by the name of Bharata (the cherished).' Hearing these words uttered by the dwellers in heaven, the monarch of Puru's race became overjoyed and spoke as follows unto his priests and ministers, 'Hear ye these words uttered by the celestial messenger? I myself know this one to be my son. If I had taken him as my son on the strength of Sakuntala's words alone, my people would have been suspicious and my son also would not have been regarded as pure.'

"Vaisampayana continued, 'The monarch, then, O thou of Bharata's race, seeing the purity of his son established by the celestial messenger, became exceedingly glad. And he took unto him that son with joy. And the king with a joyous heart then performed all those rites upon his son that a father should perform. And the king smelt his child's head and hugged him with affection. And the Brahmanas began to utter blessings upon him and the bards began to applaud him. And the monarch then experienced the great delight that one feeleth at the touch of one's son. And Dushmanta also received mat wife of his with affection. And he told her these words, pacifying her affectionately, 'O goddess, my union with the? took place privately Therefore, I was thinking of how best to establish thy purity. My people might think that we were only lustfully united and not as husband and wife, and therefore, this son that I would have installed as my heir apparent would only have been regarded as one of impure birth. And dearest, every hard word thou hast uttered in thy anger, have I, O large-eyed one, forgiven thee. Thou art my dearest!' And the royal sage Dushmanta, having spoken thus unto his dear wife, O Bharata, received her with offerings of perfume, food, and drink. And king Dushmanta, then, bestowed the name of Bharata upon his child, and formally installed him as the heir apparent.

[Section 74, Sambhava Parva, Sambhava Parva, The Mahabharata]

Another point to be noted is given in this answer. An individual can always be left for the welfare of the kingdom.

Vaisampayana said,--"During the course of this gambling, certain to bring about utter ruin (on Yudhishthira), Vidura, that dispeller of all doubts, (addressing Dhritarashtra) said, 'O great king, O thou of the Bharata race, ...... For the sake of a family a member may be sacrificed; for the sake of a village a family may be sacrificed, for the sake of a province a village may be sacrificed and for the sake of one's own soul the whole earth may be sacrificed. ....."

[Section 128, Bhagwat Yana Parva, Udyoga Parva, The Mahabharata]

You may get the doubt that how can leaving Sita can be helpful in welfare of the kingdom. You can get the answer from the following words of citizens.

Having discomfitted Ravana, in the encounter Rama hath released Sita, but not being the least enraged or account of her being touched by Ravana he hath brought her to his own city. Ravana did forcibly place Sita on her lap; how can then Rama enjoy delight in her company? Having taken her to the city of Lanka, Ravana did keep her in the Asoka forest and Sita was brought under the control of Rakshasas. Still Rama hath not been worked up with hatered by Sita. From now we shall also brooke the bad conduct of our wives — for the subjects always tread the footsteps of their King.

[Section 53, Uttara Kanda, Valmiki Ramayana]

Observe the words of citizens. They are thinking (wrongly) that ignoring the bad conduct of wives is allowed since Rama is doing it. They are thinking in such a wrong way because of the reason that they did not witnessed the fire-test directly. If Rama did not leave Sita, then the virtue of citizens in the kingdom as husbands will be in peril.

Rama left the company of Sita for the welfare of kingdom. But remember that he safely landed her in Valmiki ashram.

So, final points to note are

  1. Rama always know that Sita is chaste. (Sita's voluntary) Fire-test is intended for others.

  2. Citizens of Rama's kingdom did not witnessed the fire-test.

  3. A king should not make all decisions (particularly of this sort) based on facts that only few people know. He even needs validation of facts in front of others.

  4. A single person can be sacrificed for the welfare of kingdom.


Rama without a doubt followed both Rajdharama and Patidharma.

Just the day prior to Sita's exile Rama asked what he can do for her to which Sita replied the following-

Beholding his consort glowing with beauty, Raghava experienced an unequalled delight and exclaimed “It is well!” then he addressed the lovely Sita, who resembled a daughter of the Gods, and said:—

“Now, O Vaidehi, that you dost bear a child in your womb, what dost you desire, O Lady of lovely hips? What pleasure can I prepare for you?”

Smiling, Vaidehi answered Rama, saying:—

O Raghava, I wish to visit the sacred retreats of the Rishis of rigid penances, who dwell on the banks of the Ganges where they subsist on fruit and roots, and there I will throw myself at their feet, O Lord. O Kakutstha, it is my supreme desire even to pass a night in the hermitage of these ascetics who live on fruit and roots.”

Sita wanted to live that life so her wish was fulfilled.

The same day Ram also promised that next day he will send her -

Then Rama of imperishable exploits gave her permission to do so, saying:— “Be at peace, O Vaidehi, to-morrow without fail, you shalt go there!”

Coming to the other part, a king has no life of his own he lives for him people. All the scriptures have now and again mentioned-

Sacrifice one person for the sake of family, sacrifice one family for the sake of town.

Now though Sita was not wrong here, Rama has to let her go because an accusation was raised which would cause people to somewhat dislike the king and later it can cause unstability in the Kingdom, it was not the era of democracy a king had to make sure of well being of entire state.

Even today when a charge is raised the person is taken into custody and weather the accusation is true or not is dealt with later.

That is what Rama did, he kept kingdom first and went through the pain of living apart from his beloved for the rest of his life.

Ram did not doubt Sita even before the fire test it is just that people of Ayodhya were not a witness to it so they denied it.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .