Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 160 (1.53 seconds)
Documents citing Ms. Githa Hariharan & Anr vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr on 17 February, 1999

Report No.257 On "Reforms In Guardianship And Custody Laws In India"

1. Section 6(a): This section lists the natural guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor's person and property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property). In the case of a boy or an unmarried girl, this section clearly states that the natural guardian of a Hindu minor is the father, and after him the mother. Even after the Supreme Court's judgment in Gita Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India,151 the mother can become a natural guardian during the lifetime of the father only in exceptional circumstances.
Law Commission Report Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anjana Sharma vs Health And Family Welfare on 29 January, 2025

20. As mentioned in the matter of Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the interpretation of Section 6 (a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, emphasized 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 18 OA No. 1977/2024 Item No. 63/C-I Constitution and underscores the shared responsibility of both parents in nurturing and safeguarding their children, thereby, laying down that mother is a natural guardian of a child. Further, the respondents themselves have stated in the reply that they again (second time) requested both the petitioners and the grandparents of petitioner no. 2 to appear before the Chief Administrative Officer, AIIMS at 3:00 pm on 01.07.2023. The petitioner no. 1 along with petitioner no. 2 duly appeared in the office of the CAO but the grandparents of petitioner no. 2 did not appear on the appointed date and time. Respondents further state that from the interaction held with both the petitioners, it became evident that Master Ojas Vashishth (Petitioner No. 2) was living with his mother, i.e. the petitioner no. 1. In view of the above, and in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court, a cheque bearing no. 310732 dated 17.07.2023 amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of petitioner no. 2 has been handed over to the petitioner no. 1 on 22.07.2023.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nimish S. Agrawal vs Smt. Ruhi Agrawal on 11 May, 2022

29. The Supreme Court further in the case of Githa Hariharan (Ms) and another Vs. Reserve Bank of India and another {(1999) 2 SCC 228} has held that on a cursory reading of mandate of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 thereof gives an impression that the mother can be considered to be the guardian of the minor after the life time of the father. The Supreme Court while interpreting the same observed that whenever a dispute concerning the guardianship of a minor, between the father and mother of the minor is raised in a Court of law, the word "after" in the section would have no significance, as the Court is primarily concerned with the best interests of the minor and his welfare in the widest sense while determining the question as regards custody and guardianship of the minor. It held that the question, however, assumes importance only when the mother acts as the guardian of the minor during the 15 FAM No.18 of 2019 lifetime of the father, without the matter going to the Court, and the validity of such an action is challenged on the ground that she is not the legal guardian of the minor in view of Section 6 (a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The Court further observed that the word "after" need not necessarily mean "after the lifetime". Therefore, the averment of the appellant that the father is the natural guardian after 5 years cannot be given a preference and the welfare of the minor would be the paramount consideration.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N Chandravanshi - Full Document

Viraj Bhati And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 January, 2023

9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, AIR 1999 SC 1149, observed that in the phrase " the father" and after him, " the mother", the word' after need not necessarily mean after the lifetime of father. In the context in which it appears in Section 6(a) it means ''in the absence of', the word ''absence' therein referring to the father's absence from the care of minor's property or person for any reason whatsoever. If the father is wholly indifferent to the matters of minor or if by virtue of mutual understanding between the parents, the mother is put exclusively in charge of the minor or if the father is physically unable to take care of minor for any reason whatsoever, the father can be considered to be absent and mother being a recognized natural guardian can act validly on behalf of the minor as the guardian.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhanyamol C.J vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its Chief ... on 9 December, 2013

In Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India,7 the Apex Court has referred to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979 ("CEDAW") and the Beijing Declaration, which direct all State parties to take appropriate measures to prevent discrimination of all forms against women. Acknowledging the fact that India is a signatory to CEDAW having accepted and ratified it in June 1993, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that the domestic courts are under an obligation to give due regard to international conventions and norms for construing domestic laws when there is no inconsistency between them.
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Geeta Pandey @ Geeta Upadhyay vs State Through Nct Of Delhi on 4 June, 2022

In the case title as Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) 2 SCC 228 , relied upon by the petitioner is a celebrity judgment wherein the Apex Court has held that the word "after" in section 6 (a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act does not mean that the mother shall be natural guardian only after the death of the father. The word "after" has to be construed by keeping in mind the object of the act and that is the welfare of the minor. Therefore, where a father resigns from performing the duties as a father and leave the minor in destitution or withdraw from the conjugal bliss of married life in such circumstances it would be deemed that the father is absent for the purposes of Section 6 (a) of the HMG Act and Section 19 (b) of the Guardianship and Wards Act. The Apex court has construed the word "after" as GP No. 2/22 Page No.5/7 meaning "in the absence of" - be it temporary or otherwise or total apathy of the father towards the child or even inability of father by reason of aliment or otherwise.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.R. Deivasigamani Mudaliar vs T.N. Somasundara Nadar (Died) And Ors. on 9 July, 2003

We are of the view that the above decisions are distinguishable, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in GITHA HARIHARAN v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA where the Supreme Court held that mother can act as natural guardian as both the parents are bound to take care of the person and property of the minor and where the father is not in actual charge of the affairs of the minor either because of his indifference or because of an agreement between him and the mother of the minor and the minor is in the exclusive care and custody of the mother or the father for any other reason is unable to take care of the minor because of his physical and/or mental incapacity, the mother can act as natural guardian of the minor and all her actions would be valid even during the lifetime of the father.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - R J Babu - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next