LexGITHA HARIHARAN AND ANR . versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.... ,.
GITHA HARIHARAN AND ANR ..
A
v.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.
FEBRUARY 17, 1999
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., M. SRINIVASAN AND
B
UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.)
Hindu Law:
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 :
c
Section 6(a)-l'rovided that mother had the right to become a natural
guardian of a minor only 'after' the father-Discrimination on ground of sex
alone-Constitutionality of-Mother and father of a minor jointly applied to
the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for opening a deposit account in the name
of the minor-Mother, in agreement with the father, signed the application as D
the guardian of the minor-But RBI refused to accept the application on the
ground that the mother, during the lifetime of the f other, was not the natural
guardian of the mother-Held, legislature is presumed to act in accordance
with the Constitution-Hence, Section 6(a) can be const1Ued in such a
manner so as to retain it within constitutional limits-Moreover, if Ss. 4 and
6 of the HMG Act are constrned hannoniously, the word 'after' means 'in the E
absence of thereby ref ening to the f other's absence from the care of the
minor's property or person for any reason whatever-Hence, in such situa-
tions the mother can valiliily act as the natural guardian of the minor even
during the lifetime of the father who is considered to be absent-Therefore,
RBI was not right in refusing to accept the said application-However, this
F
_... .....
judgment is to operate prospectivel~All organisations are directed to f onnu-
late appropriate methodology accordingly-Same decision to apply in respect
of guardianship under S. 19(b) of the GW Act-Constitution of India, 1950,
Alts, 14 and 15--Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, S 19(b )-Convention on
the Elimination of All Fonns of Discrimination Against Women, 1979
("CEDAW')--Beijing Declaration.
G
.>
Section 2-Scope and ambit of-Held, the law relating to minority and
"
guardianship amongst Hindus is to be found not only in the old Hindu law
as laid down by the smritis, shrntis and the commentaries as recognised by
the Courls of law but also statutes applicable amongst others to Hindus viz.,
Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 and Indian Majority Act, 1875.
H
669
670
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1999] 1 S.C.R.
A
Jwispmdence of-importance of-Held, Hindu law has shown no signs
B
c
of decrepitude and it has its val11es and imp01ta11ce even today-Howeve1;
certain parts of Hindu law is codified to give f mitful meaning and stat11to1y
sanction to the prevailing concept of law having d11e regard to the social and
economic charges in the society.
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Article 51-Scope of-Held, when there is 110 inconsistency between
domestic and intemational laws, co~1ts are obliged to give due regard to
intemational co11ve11tio11s and nonns while constming domestic laws.
Interpretation of Statutes :
Basic mle~Held, where two i11te1pretations are possible the Cowt
should lean inf avour of the statutory provision.
D
General mies-Held, 11a1Tow pedantic interpretation numing counter to
the constitutional mandate ought to be avoided always-ff such interpretation
departs from the legislative enactment, a wider debate is called for having due
regard to contextual facts.
Subsidiary ntles-Presumptions-Held, validity of a legislation is to be
E presumed-Only in the event of gross violation of constitutional sanctions that
the law courts would be within its jurisdiction to declare the legislative
enactment to be an invalid piece of legislation and not otherwise.
F
·Internal aids-Definition clause-Scope of-Held, same meaning
ought to be attributed to the same word used by the statute as per the
definition Section.
Words and Phrases :
''After"--Meaning of-fn the context of S.6(a) of the Hindu Minority
G and Guardianship Act, 1956.
"Guardian''-Meaning of-In the context of S.4(b) of the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
"Natural Guardian ''---Meaning of-In the context of S.4(c) of the Hindu
H Min01ity and Guardianship Act, 1956.
'
..
'
...
GITHA HARIHARAN v. R.BJ.
671
•
JO'
The first petitioner and her husband, the second petitioner, jointly A
applied to the Reserve Bank of India, the first respondent, for issue of
Relief Bonds in the name of their minor son. The petitioners stated
expressly that both of them agreed that the mother of the child, i.e., the
first petitioner would act as the guardian of the minor for the purpose of
investments maExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.