GITHA HARIHARAN V. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (1999) 2 SCC 228

INTRODUCTION-

The position of the mother as a natural guardian was upheld in Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that, in the child’s best interests, a mother could be named as the child’s guardian rather than the father. The court cited Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which designates the father as the natural guardian of a minor and the mother as his successor after taking into account both the mother’s right to privacy and the child’s best interests. The case recognized the mother and father as the child’s legal guardians. According to the court, the term “after” can also refer to the father’s temporary absence for any reason.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

In Writ Petition No. 489 of 1995:

• The second petitioner’s wife filed the initial petition. The first petitioner is a writer, and it is claimed that Penguin published a number of her books. The second petitioner works as a medical researcher at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. On December 10, 1984, they jointly applied to the Reserve Bank of India (first respondent) for 9% relief bonds in the amount of Rs 20,000 in the name of their minor son Rishab Bailey.
• They explicitly stated that they both agreed that the child’s mother, the first petitioner, would act as the minor’s guardian for the purposes of investments made with the money held by their minor son.
• Therefore, the first petitioner signed as the minor’s guardian on the application’s prescribed form. The first respondent replied to the petitioners and advised them to either present the application form signed by the minor’s father or a certificate of guardianship issued in the mother’s favor by a competent authority.
• This resulted in the two petitioners filing this writ petition, asking that Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the HMG Act) and Section 19(b) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the GW Act) be declared invalid because they violate Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, as well as to quash and set aside the first respondent’s refusal to accept the deposit from the petitioners and to issue a mandamus directing the acceptance of the same after establishing that the first petitioner is the minor’s legal guardian.
• The first respondent’s counter-affidavit states that the first petitioner is not the natural guardian of the minor son and that the application was improperly accepted by the Bank. It is also stated that the father of a Hindu minor is the only natural guardian under Section 6(a) of the HMG Act. The first respondent asked that the writ petition be dismissed.

In WP (C) No. 1016 of 1991:

The first respondent’s wife filed the petition. The District Court of Delhi is currently hearing the divorce case that the latter has started against the former. In the same legal action, he has also prayed for custody of their young son. He had written to her and the school where the minor was enrolled on numerous occasions, the petitioner claims, claiming to be the only legal guardian of the child and that no action should be taken without his consent. In response, the petitioner submitted a request for support for both herself and the son, who is still a minor. She has petitioned the court to invalidate Section 6(a) of the HMG Act and Section 19(b) of the GW Act because they are in violation of the Constitution.

ISSUES RAISED-

• Are the HMG Act’s Section 6(a) and the GW Act’s Section 19(b) biased against women?
• What does the phrase “After” in Section 6(a) of the HMG Act imply? Does that imply that if the father passes away, the mother will become the child’s natural guardian or that the father is simply given preference over the mother in this regard?
• If the father is still alive and capable of serving as a guardian, can the mother be appointed as the child’s natural guardian?
• If the father is still alive and qualified to serve as a guardian, can a mother obtain custody and guardianship of a minor son?
• Depending on the facts of the case, Sections 6(a) of the HMG Act and Section 19(b) of the GW Act may be interpreted narrowly or broadly for the welfare of the minor.

ARGUMENTS:

• The petitioner, Ms. Githa Hariharan, and her counsel claimed that the RBI’s recommendation was arbitrary and discriminatory and that Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibited this kind of discrimination. 
• By questioning the constitutionality of Section 6(a) of the 1956 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. She claimed that the aforementioned section discriminates against women and places them at a disadvantage with regard to guardianship rights involving their children.

JUDGEMENT (DECISION) -:

• The bench stated that the child’s welfare should take precedence over all other considerations after reviewing the facts and arguments. The welfare of the child comes before all else, and it includes love, affection, security, and other things for the child in addition to financial benefits. J.V Gajre V. Pathankan (1970) 2 SCC 717 was cited as a precedent by the bench. When the father was still alive, he showed no interest in the child’s affairs. In this instance, it was determined that the mother was the daughter’s natural guardian. According to him, the mother comes after the father as the natural guardian under Hindu law and the Act, but the court decided otherwise in the aforementioned cases.
• 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 interpreted in its literal sense but rather according to the purpose of the Act and the constitutional guarantee of gender equality because any other interpretation would make the statute null and void, which is something that should be avoided. The petition was then dismissed by the bench, who instructed the Reserve Bank of India to develop appropriate methodology in light of his findings. The bench further ordered the District Court to consider the comment when determining the minor’s custody.

CONCLUSION:

According to the ruling in this case, gender equality is not prohibited by Section 6(a) of the HMG Act. Because the word “after” is used here, it does not imply that the father’s life has ended; rather, it simply means that the mother can act as the minor’s natural guardian if the father is uninterested in or unable to do so for other reasons. However, it does make a distinction based on gender between the child’s father and mother, giving the father priority and the mother a second-place finish when it states that “mother will take over as the minor’s natural guardian after the father. The word “Parent” may be substituted for “Father” or “Mother” in Section 6(a) of the HMG Act in place of gender-inclusive terminology.

REFERENCES-

• https://www.scconline.com/
• https://indiankanoon.org/
• India Code.nic.in

This Article is written by Aastha Srivastava, a 3^rd Year LL.B student of DES Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin