| CITATION | AIR 1999 2 SCC 228 |
|---|---|
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 17 February 1999 |
| COURT | Supreme court of India (SC) |
| PETITIONER | Githa Hariharan & Anr |
| RESPONDENT | Reserve Bank of India & Anr |
| BENCH | Justice A.S. AnandJustice M SrinivasanJustice Umesh C Banerjee. |
INTRODUCTION
A guardian is in charge of keeping an underage individual’s person belongings safe. It is important to distinguish between guardianship and custody. While guardianship refers to the minor’s right to make important choices regarding his life and property, custody relates to the minor’s everyday physical care.
The HMGA, 1956 defines a natural guardian as someone who can be either a mother or a father and who is available to care for the child and who genuinely cares about the child’s welfare. This case is significant because it established for the first time that this definition can apply to either parent, regardless of whether they are the child’s biological father.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner, Ms Githa Hariharan, got married to Dr. Mohan Ram in 1982, and their son, Rishab, was born in July 1984. Under the name of their son Rishab, they applied to the Reserve Bank of India for a 9% Relief Bond. The petitioner said that she would serve as the child’s natural guardian for investment purposes in her role as a mother.
The Reserve Bank of India’s authorities returned the application, advising her to provide the father’s signature on it as he is the legal guardian; alternatively, the bank requested that she submit a guardianship certificate that has been duly approved by a suitable authority in her name. As per section 6 (a)[2] of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (HGMA), 1956, the Reserve Bank of India notified that the father would be the natural guardian.
The request was connected to another one that was ongoing in the Delhi District Court about child custody as part of a divorce. Throughout the proceedings, the spouse filed a custody petition. The petitioner claimed that the father had shown complete indifference to the kid and had no concern for the child’s welfare when she filed a support application for herself and her son. He was not fulfilling any equivalent responsibility he was only asserting his right to be the child’s natural guardian.
In response, Ms. Githa Hariharan filed a writ suit, arguing that Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution are violated by Sections 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (HMG), 1956 and Section 19(b) of the Guardian and Wards Act (GW), 1890. The judge combined the two cases and heard them concurrently since she submitted the same plea in her divorce case.
ISSUES RAISED
- Does the clause included in Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Wards Act, 1956 have constitutional standing?
- Does a mother has the same legal right of guardianship over a minor as a father?
- The Indian Constitution’s Articles 14 and 15 guaranteeing equality as well as Articles 14 and 15 prohibiting discrimination are violated.
ARGUMENTS
- Since the respondent’s recommendations discriminated against the woman and violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner claimed that it was arbitrary in character.
- By contesting the constitutionality of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956’s Section 6(a). She said that the aforementioned part discriminates against women and disadvantages them when it comes to their rights as guardians of their own children.
JUDGEMENT
The bench declared that the well-being of the kid should take priority over all other considerations after reviewing the evidence and reasoning. The child’s welfare comes first and foremost; it encompasses more than just financial gain it also refers to the child’s need for love, care, security, and other things.
The bench cited the earlier ruling Gajre vs Pandkhan in which the father was still alive and showed little concern for the child’s affairs. In this instance, it was decided that the mother was her minor daughter’s natural guardian. the bench said that the mother is the natural guardian after the father under Hindu law and the Act, but in the instances mentioned above, the court decided differently.
An interpretation of the word “after” (Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Wards Act, 1956) was seen as crucial, and it was strongly believed that a long-standing law should not be easily overturned.
The bench came to the conclusion that the word “after” should not be taken literally rather, it should be construed in light of the Act’s goals and the constitutional guarantee of gender equality since any other reading would make the act null and invalid, which is something that should be avoided. The bench therefore rejected the plea and instructed the Reserve Bank of India to develop suitable procedures in light of his findings. In addition, the bench directed the District Court to consider the observation in determining the minor’s custody.
CONCLUSION
This case is noteworthy because it established, for the first time, that a natural guardian, as defined by the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, need not always be a father but rather any person who is capable of raising the child and genuinely cares about their welfare.
The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956’s legislative aim would be violated if it were decided that a minor Hindu child’s mother and father are the child’s natural guardians. It would also be discriminatory to state that the mother becomes a guardian only after the father passes away.
REFERENCES
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1241462/
https://www.simplekanoon.com/family-law/ms-githa-hariharan-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-1484/
https://vidhinama.com/case-analysis-githa-hariharan-v-reserve-bank-of-india-1999-2-scc-228/
This Article is written by Simran Haider Pathan, student at Balaji Law College of Pune, Maharashtra, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
