Notes On The Law Before Githa Hariharan V. Reserve Bank Of India

FAMILY LAW-I

GITHA HARIHARAN V. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

SUBMITTED BY-

HARPREET SINGH GUPTA

I.D. NO. - 2054

II YEAR B.A., LL.B. (HONS.)

DATE OF SUBMISSION- 10TH AUGUST 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4

POSITION OF LAW BEFORE GITHA HARIHARAN CASE 5

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LAW COMMISION 7

ARGUMENTS RAISED 8

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT 9

POSITION OF LAW AFTER GITHA HARIHARAN CASE 10

CONCLUSION 11

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF STATUTES

1. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

2. The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

MISCELLANEOUS

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.

LIST OF CASES

1. Ms. Githa Hariharan & Anr v Reserve Bank Of India & Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 228 (Supreme Court of India).

2. Panni Lal vs Rajinder Singh And Anr, 1993 SCR (3) 589 (Supreme Court of India).

3. Narain Singh vs Sapurna Kuer And Ors., 1968 (16) BLJR 898 (Patna High Court).

4. Jijabai Vithalrao Gajre vs Pathankhan & Ors, 1971 AIR 315 (Supreme Court of India).

5. Alamelu Sockalingam vs V.Venkatachalam, 2012 (6) CTC 907 ( Madras High Court).

6. Jeyam v. Minor Rejimoon & Others, 2013 Indlaw MAD 1750 (Madras High Court).

7. Anju Mehra v Union of India, [2013] 356 ITR 149 (Punjab and Haryana High Court).

INTRODUCTION

While Article 14 of the Constitution of India envisages equality before law and equal protection of laws to all its citizens, there still exist laws which clearly discriminate against women on the basis of gender alone, which is a prohibited marker under Article 15. In a society like India which eulogises motherhood, a mother was considered to be natural guardian only after the father and did not have legal authority of the law to take decisions on behalf of her minor children. The law of g...

... middle of paper ...

...ms or at least can participate in the decision making. This interpretation properly realises the natural guardianship of the mother and her role in the decision making process with respect to her child’s person and property.

The researcher believes that although the ideal would have been to strike down section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship act and section 19 of the Guardian and Wards act, this judgement which has reinterpreted the word ‘after’ in section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship act is a definite step in the positive direction. The researcher believes that this judgement is a first definite step and now the responsibility is of the legislature to amend this section so that there is no scope of ambiguity, even in terms of interpretation, and equality between father and mother is maintained in terms of natural guardianship in Hindu law.