This is the verse as give in Shiva Puran. Is it true because vedas are against Wife beating

The brahmin lady said:


A chaste lady shall never mention her husband’s name. If the husband scolds or rebukes her she shall not abuse him in return. Even when beaten by him she shall remain glad and say “I may even be killed, O lord. Be kind to me.” (Shiva Puran


  • 5
    I don't think this verse "supports" anything. It merely prescribes rules for Pativratā, which represents the marriage vows for women. So I don't think its possible to infer any kind of support from this verse. Unless explicitly mentioning such support, the text could just as well condemn such practices. Dec 23, 2021 at 11:59
  • Many of the Puranas are encyclopedic in nature. They are reporting ancient hindu ideas and practices on many issues. The Purana is not necessarily supporting wife beating. It is reporting practice in ancient times. Dec 23, 2021 at 12:56
  • 2
    Well, the purana ia very clear on this point.
    – Wikash_
    Dec 23, 2021 at 12:57
  • Are you sure Vedas don't support this? See here hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/18614/22253
    – user22253
    Dec 23, 2021 at 14:18
  • @MrGreenGold wrong translation of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.7 has been done. vedicheritage.gov.in/flipbook/Brihadaranyaka_Upanishad/#book/… this is correct translation (word to word)
    – Raghav
    Dec 23, 2021 at 17:10

3 Answers 3


Maybe there is some wrong translation because as per Gita press translation

A chaste woman shouldn't take her husband's name . Even after husband speaks harsh words , wife shouldn't say harsh words in return. When her husband calls her , she should leave all housework and immediately go to him and lovingly ask him with bowed head and folded hands .....

By the way this is another link for pdf of Gita press translation , the earlier link is not that clear . You can go to page 342 of this new link I shared

  • That could be the case because, all hindu texts should go in accordance to the vedas and Vedas are against the beating of either two Dec 27, 2021 at 4:19
  • @KeśavaJāmbavatīDas yeah , by the way I would be grateful if you would accept my answer if it satisfies you :-)
    – Raghav
    Jan 21 at 12:11

She is speaking to the daughter of a mountain, so it would make sense to tailor advice to her.

There is a race called mountains, who along with race called rivers, are both literally mountains and rivers and sapient beings. One clear example is when Ganga is described as both a literal river and able to talk (makes more sense if you imagine the rivers as flowing in a circle) in a way in which if they were not the same thing the story would not make sense.

"Lomasa said,


Then came down from the sky Ganga, the daughter of the snowy mountain. And her whirlpools were raging, and she was teeming with fishes and sharks.

O king! she directing her course towards the sea, separated herself, into three streams; and her water was bestrewn with piles of froth, which looked like so many rows of (white) ganders. And crooked and tortuous in the movement of her body, at places; and at others stumbling at it were; and covered with foam as with a robe: she went forward like a woman drunk. And elsewhere, by virtue of the roar of her waters, she uttered loud sounds.

Thus assuming very many different aspects, when she fell from the sky, and reached the surface of the earth, she said to Bhagiratha,

So presumably Parvati is a mountain or river given her family. Thus being absolutely gigantic, beatings wouldn't really hurt her and she would be fine. Thus beating your spouse for mountains and rivers makes more sense than for humans.

  • Actually translation is wrong , so I guess there no need to explain this particular verse .
    – Raghav
    Dec 24, 2021 at 16:41
  • @Raghav 1. How do you know it is wrong? 2. The point is so important to the story, I'm not sure how you can even translate it wrong and not have people notice and stop trusting you. Dec 24, 2021 at 16:43
  • @Raghav Are you talking about the verse in the question? That's irrelevant to this answer. It can explain it no matter what the real translation is. Dec 24, 2021 at 16:45
  • I meant the beating with stick /hand part is wrong , I have shared gita press translation
    – Raghav
    Dec 24, 2021 at 16:56
  • @Raghav You may very well be right. Best to keep this to remove any lingering doubts though. Dec 24, 2021 at 16:58

This verse is consistent with what we find in Manusmriti and other Puranas

One of the answers claims it is wrong translation. This is incorrect. The Sanskrit verse says

patyurnāma na gṛhṇīyāt kadācana pativratā | ākruṣṭāpi na cākrośetprasīdettāḍitāpi ca | hanyatāmiti ca brūyātsvāminniti kṛpāṃ kuru || 19 ||

The word to focus on is tāḍita which means beaten

  • no , it means both beaten and chastised( rebuking severely i.e. using harsh words ) faculty.washington.edu/prem/mw/t.html
    – Raghav
    Jan 21 at 11:23
  • @Raghav - I am yet to see tadita means rebuke in any other scripture. And finally when other scriptures corroborates beating then i don't see why it should.mesn rebuke Jan 21 at 16:46
  • 1
    This should be the accepted answer. Why was it downvoted? No one here posted the real Sanskrit. Even the translation which OP posted is unacceptance.
    – Lokesh
    Jan 23 at 2:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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