Giving the opinion of the Court, Banerjee J asserted the predominance of the child’s welfare
in all considerations. He considered the precedent of Gajre v. Pathankhan (1970 2 SCC 717)
in which, although the father was alive, he was not taking any interest in the affairs of the
child. In that case the mother was ruled to be the natural guardian of her minor daughter.
He set out that the Hindu law and the Act held that the father is the natural guardian and
after him the mother but in the above case, the Court held the opposite.
The judgment in Gajre v Pathankhan considered that:
“… a rigid insistence of strict statutory interpretation may not be conducive for the growth of
the child, and welfare being the predominant criteria, it would be a plain exercise of judicial
power of interpreting the law so as to be otherwise conducive to a fuller and better
development and growth of the child.”
Justice Banerjee noted that the judge in Gajre v. Pathankhan allowed the mother to be the
natural guardian:
“… but without expression of any opinion as regards the true and correct interpretation of the
word ‘after’ or deciding the issue as to the constitutionality of the provision as contained in
Section 6(a) of the Act of 1956.”
He felt strongly that a long established law should not easily be set aside; that a key point
was interpretation of the word “after”; and that:
“… the word did not necessarily mean after the death of the father, on the contrary, it [means]
‘in the absence off’ be it temporary or otherwise or total apathy of the father towards the child
or even inability of the father by reason of ailment or otherwise.”
He concluded that ascribing the literal meaning to the word ‘after’ cannot arise having due
regard to the object of the Act and the constitutional guarantee of gender equality, since any
other interpretation would render the statute void which ought to be avoided.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ms Githa Hariharan and another v. Reserve Bank of India and another (AIR 1999, 2
SCC 228)
1) Reference Details
Jurisdiction: Indian Supreme Court
Date of Decision: 17 February 1999
2) Facts
1984. In December 1984 the petitioner applied to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for 9%
Relief Bond to be held in the name of the son indicating that she, the mother, would act as
the natural guardian for the purposes of investments. RBI returned the application advising
the petitioner either to produce an application signed by the father or a certificate of
guardianship from a competent authority in her favour to enable the bank to issue bonds as
requested.
This petition was related to a petition for custody of the child stemming from a divorce
proceeding pending in the District Court of Delhi. The husband petitioned for custody in the
proceedings. The petitioner filed an application for maintenance for herself and the minor
son, arguing that the father had shown total apathy towards the child and was not
interested in the welfare of the child. He was only claiming the right to be the natural
guardian without discharging any corresponding obligation.
On these facts, the petitioner asks for a declaration that the provisions of s. 6(a) of the
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 along with s. 19(b) of the Guardian
Constitution and Wards Act violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution if India.
3) Law
National Law
• Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 (The natural guardians
of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the
minor’s property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property),
are … in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl-the father, and after him, the mother:
provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years
shall ordinarily be with the mother)
• Guardian Constitution and Wards Act 1879
• Constitution of India, Article 14 (Equality before the law) and Article 15
(prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of
birth)
4) Legal Arguments
The Applicant 2
The applicant argued that the communication from the RBI is arbitrary and was opposed to
the basic concept of justice under Article 32 of the Constitution. They therefore challenged
the validity of s. 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 (the Act). Further
they argued that the provisions of s. 6 of the Act seriously disadvantage women and
discriminate against women in the matter of guardianship rights, responsibilities and
authority in relation to their own children.
5) Decision
Giving the opinion of the Court, Banerjee J asserted the predominance of the child’s welfare
in all considerations. He considered the precedent of Gajre v. Pathankhan (1970 2 SCC 717)
in which, although the father was alive, he was not taking any interest in the affairs of the
child. In that case the mother was ruled to be the natural guardian of her minor daughter.
He set out that the Hindu law and the Act held that the father is the natural guardian and
after him the mother but in the above case, the Court held the opposite.
The judgment in Gajre v Pathankhan considered that:
“… a rigid insistence of strict statutory interpretation may not be conducive for the growth of
the child, and welfare being the predominant criteria, it would be a plain exercise of judicial
power of interpreting the law so as to be otherwise conducive to a fuller and better
development and growth of the child.”
Justice Banerjee noted that the judge in Gajre v. Pathankhan allowed the mother to be the
natural guardian:
“… but without expression of any opinion as regards the true and correct interpretation of the
word ‘after’ or deciding the issue as to the constitutionality of the provision as contained in
Section 6(a) of the Act of 1956.”
He felt strongly that a long established law should not easily be set aside; that a key point
was interpretation of the word “after”; and that:
“… the word did not necessarily mean after the death of the father, on the contrary, it [means]
‘in the absence off’ be it temporary or otherwise or total apathy of the father towards the child
or even inability of the father by reason of ailment or otherwise.”
He concluded that ascribing the literal meaning to the word ‘after’ cannot arise having due
regard to the object of the Act and the constitutional guarantee of gender equality, since any
other interpretation would render the statute void which ought to be avoided.
Subsequently, he dismissed the petition regarding the constitutionality of the Act but
directed the Reserve Bank to formulate appropriate methodology in the light of his
observations. He also instructed the District Court, Delhi to take account of his comments
when considering custody and guardianship of the minor child.
No comments:
Post a Comment