Family Law

Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India

(1999) 2 SCC 228

Facts

Githa Hariharan married Dr Mohan Ram in 1982, and their son Rishab was born in July 1984.
In December 1984, Githa applied to the Reserve Bank of India to purchase relief bonds in her minor son’s name.
She stated that she would act as the child’s natural guardian.
The RBI returned the application and required either:
the father’s signature; or
a guardianship certificate issued in the mother’s favour.
The RBI relied on Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which described the natural guardian of a Hindu minor as “the father, and after him, the mother.”
In a connected case, a mother who had actual custody of her child challenged the father’s claim that he alone was the natural guardian despite showing little interest in the child.
The mothers challenged Section 6(a), arguing that a literal reading placed the mother below the father and violated Articles 14 and 15.

Whether “after him” in Section 6(a) means that the mother can act as natural guardian only after the father’s death.
Whether such an interpretation would unlawfully discriminate against mothers.

The Court rejected the narrow interpretation that the mother’s guardianship remained suspended throughout the father’s lifetime.
Both parents have a duty to care for the child’s person and property.
Treating the father as the exclusive guardian merely because he is alive would disregard:
the mother’s actual role;
the child’s welfare;
constitutional gender equality.
The expression “after him” had to be read in the context of the statute as a whole.
Section 4 defines a guardian as a person having care of the minor or the minor’s property. This description can include either parent.
Therefore, Section 6 should not be read as giving the father an absolute superior right.
The Court explained that “absence” is not confined to physical absence or death.
A father may be legally alive but effectively absent where he:
takes no interest in the child;
refuses to discharge parental obligations;
is incapable because of illness;
allows the mother exclusively to manage the child’s affairs.
In such situations, the mother can act as natural guardian without first obtaining a court declaration.
This interpretation preserved Section 6 while removing its apparently discriminatory effect.
It also ensured that banks and other authorities could not automatically reject a mother merely because the father remained alive.

Section 6(a) was not struck down.
“After him” was interpreted to mean “in the absence of the father,” and not merely after his death.
A mother may act as natural guardian during the father’s lifetime where he is absent, indifferent, incapable or not actually in charge.
The RBI was directed to frame an appropriate procedure consistent with this interpretation.
Use this case for: the mother’s equal capacity to act as natural guardian during the father’s lifetime.