When I read the Ramayana I am greatly annoyed and frustrated with Rama. However, if I were a powerful man in society I would/could likely have a different interpretation. Why would I not side with Rama? Basically I can do anything and get by with it. Another view is that Rama could be attempting to fulfill his dharma and truly miss Sita. However, she has passed all his tests to prove her faithfulness.
Given that "low-caste women are not as dependent on their husbands as" Brahmin women are I would think that there interpretation would be mixed (131). They could see Sita as being better off without Rama, who needs a man anyway. At the same time, however, their independence could make them connect with Sita's unjust rejection. The songs of the non-Brahmin women "concentrate on women's themes" (131).The lower caste women are singing as "they are working in the fields, grinding flour (130)."
Rao says that "the epic's popularity increases with the status of the caste (130)."If this is the case then there is undoubtedly a difference of interpretation occuring.
Women from the upper caste communities sing about how the role of women "in Brahmin households as the protectors of family prosperity (120)." The proper behavior of women is believed to bring prosperity to the family in this chaste. Therefore, if these women have been told that Sita is it, then they would be more accepting of the Ramayana.