Introduction

In the landmark case of Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, the Supreme Court redefined the traditional understanding of guardianship under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. This pivotal ruling acknowledged the mother's right to be recognized as the natural guardian of her child, challenging the conventional interpretation that prioritized the father's role.

• By emphasizing the child's best interests and considering principles of equality, the court highlighted the importance of harmonizing legal provisions with evolving societal norms, thereby reshaping the landscape of parental rights and responsibilities in India.

Facts

• Githa Hariharan, the petitioner, married Dr. Mohan Ram in 1982, and they have a son named Rishab Bailey.
• A pending divorce case in the District Court of Delhi involves Dr. Mohan's claim for custody of Rishab, despite his apparent disinterest in the child's affairs.
• Ms. Hariharan filed for maintenance for herself and Rishab.
• In 1984, Ms. Hariharan applied to the RBI for 9% relief bonds in Rishab's name, designating herself as his natural guardian.
• The application was rejected, and the petitioner was directed by the Court to submit the application signed by the minor son's father along with a certificate of guardianship issued by a competent authority in her favor.
• The petitioners file a writ petition, challenging Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which designates the father as the natural guardian, with the mother having guardianship rights "after" the father. and seeking relief from the court.
• Ms. Hariharan challenged the constitutionality of Section 6(a) in the Supreme Court, arguing violations of Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.
• The petitioners jointly applied for relief bonds for Rishab, explicitly stating Ms. Hariharan as the guardian.
• Dr. Mohan, in his counter-affidavit, asserts his exclusive natural guardianship rights over Rishab.
• Ms. Hariharan's petition under Article 32 seeks to invalidate Section 6(a) and Section 19(b) of the Guardian and Wards Act, alleging discrimination and seeking affirmation of her guardianship rights.

Issue Involved

• Whether the Constitution of India violate Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Section 19(b) Guardianship Act on grounds that it violated the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution?

Observation

• The Supreme Court interpreted Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, considering constitutional principles of gender equality.
• It held that the term "after" in Section 6(a) should not be narrowly construed to mean only after the father's death but should encompass situations where the father is absent or shows total apathy towards the child's welfare.
• Emphasizing the paramount importance of the child's welfare, the Court ruled that the mother can act as the natural guardian in cases.
• The Court dismissed the petition and instructed the Reserve Bank of India to develop appropriate procedures in line with its findings.
• Furthermore, it directed the District Court to consider its interpretation when deciding on matters of the minor's custody, prioritizing the child's welfare above all other considerations.

Conclusion

The landmark judgment in Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India case revolutionized the interpretation of Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, emphasizing that natural guardianship should be determined based on the capability and genuine interest of the parent in the child's welfare, rather than gender. This decision reaffirms the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution and underscores the shared responsibility of both parents in nurturing and safeguarding their children.