Published on: 28th January 2026
Authored by: Palak Verma
Apex University
Petitioner- Githa Hriharan
Respondent- Reserve Bank of India
Court- Supreme Court of India
Citation- (1999) 2 SCC 228
Bench- Justice S. Saghir Ahmad, Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice U.C. Banerjee
Statutory provision- Section 6(a) of Hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, Article 14 of the Constitution of India, section 19 Guardian and Wards act, 1890.
Date of Judgement- 17.02.1999
Facts of the case
Githa Hariharan is a writer most of her work has been published by the penguin, she married Dr. Mohan Ram a medical scientist, in 1982. They both had a son named Rishabh bailey in 1984.
At the time of the case, the divorce proceeding was pending in the district court, Delhi. She had also filed the case for maintenance for herself and her son, as the child was living with her at that time.
The father claimed that he repeatedly wrote to the petitioner, that he was the natural guardian of the minor, no decision should be taken without his prior permission. In which the petitioner argued that the father had no interest in the welfare and benefit of the minor and he showed total apathy to the child, despite her efforts.
In December 1984, Githa Hariharan applied for a relief bond for 9% in the name of her son, RBI rejected the application, and asked to submit the application signed by the father, or a certificate of guardianship from a competent authority, they said under section 6, of Hindu Minority and Guardianship act, 1956, the father is the natural guardian of a minor and a mother could act as a natural guardian only when the father is dead.
In response, she filed a case in the supreme court arguing that section 6 of HMGA was violation and contradicting to the Article 14 and 15 of the constitution of India, stating that it was discriminatory towards the women and violated their rights as the mother.
Legal issues involved
- Whether section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,1956 and section 19 of Guardian and Ward Act,1890 violated the Article 14 & 15 of the Indian Constitution?
- Whether the word ‘after him’ in the section only means ‘after the death’ of the father?
- Whether the mother of the minor can be recognised as the natural guardian?
Arguments
Petitioner
The petitioner argued that section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is discriminatory against man and women, hence it is violating Article 14 & 15 of the Constitution which stands against the discrimination of any kind based on the gender.
The petitioner also argued that making father as the primary guardian of the child even if he is not interested in the welfare of the child and not devoted towards the minor is against the ‘principle of best interest of the child’ and making the mother secondary guardian deprives her from taking care of her own child. The learned counsel, to make their argument strong cited the case of Jijabai Vithalrao Gajre v. Pathankhan (1970), in which the supreme court held that mother can be a natural guardian if the father is not interested in his parental duties.
Respondent
The respondent justified its action by stating that section 6 of HMGA, explicitly states that the father is the natural guardian of the child ‘after him’ means after the death of the father the mother becomes the natural guardian, thus RBI was right in its action rejecting the application of the mother
The respondents also argued that any alteration that has to be made regarding the provisions is through legislature and not by judicial interpretation.
Lastly, the respondent argued that the hon’ble court lacks the jurisdiction in this matter, as section 19 of the GW Act, restrict court from appointing a guardian, unless the parents are dead or they are unfit in the eyes of the law, which is clearly not the situation in this case.
Judgement
The Supreme Court delivered the landmark judgement in the case, rejecting the rigid and gender biased approach of section 6 of the HMGA and upheld that the mother can also be a natural guardian of the minor even when the father is alive court cannot overlook the gender inequality in the statutory provisions, and whenever the constitutional provision contradicts with the statutory provision, the constitution outweighs the statutory provisions.
The Supreme Court held that the phrase ‘after him’ in the section 6 of HMGA, does not mean only after the death of the father, the court broaden the context of the section stating that ‘after him’, means in the ‘absence of the father’ which includes- physical absence, indifference, neglect, lack of concern, in capacity or unwillingness of the father.
The supreme court also opined that in the guardianship issues the ‘principle of best interest of the child’ would always be the foremost priority of the court.
Hence, the court gave the judgement in the favour of the petitioner declaring her the natural guardian of the minor.
Ratio decidendi
The supreme court while broadening the concept of section 6 of the HMGA, upheld that the phrase ‘after him’ should be interpreted as ‘in the absence of the father’, meaning that mother is legally competent to act as the natural of guardian of the child even during the lifetime of the father, if he is not interest in the upbringing of the child, or unavailable.
The interpretation must align with the ‘principle of best interest of the child’ and constitutionality of Article 14 of gender equality would not be overlooked.
Obiter dicta
The court observed that the traditional approach of patriarchy cannot be accepted in a modern society. Personal must be interpreted in such way so that they align with or be consistent with article 14. Guardianship is not only about the parental superiority but also about the welfare of the child.
Significance
The Supreme Court gave the landmark judgement advancing the role of gender equality in the guardianship. It eliminated the traditional patriarchy prioritizing the males in the personal laws like guardianship. This judgement also strengthens the legal stand of mother as equal in the matter of natural guardian. This case continues to shape the jurisprudence of the welfare of the child and guardianship.
Conclusion
In Githa Hariharan v. RBI, the Supreme Court restored balance to a provision that had long placed mothers on the sidelines. By interpreting “after him” to mean “in the absence of the father,” the Court ensured that the law reflects the practical realities of parenting. This conclusion honours the fact that both parents share responsibility for a child’s well-being, and either may step forward when required. The decision gently but firmly moves the law away from outdated assumptions and towards a more equal, compassionate understanding of family life—where a child’s welfare is central, and where the mother’s role is recognised with the respect and dignity it deserves.
Reference
- Githa Hariharan & Anr vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr (1999) 2 SCC 228, Githa Hariharan and Ors. vs. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. (17.02.1999 – SC)
