Facts:

Githa Hariharan, the petitioner in this case, is a well-known writer. She married Dr. Mohan Ram in 1982, and they had a son named Rishab Bailey. Over time, their relationship started having problems, and eventually, they separated.

At the time of this case, a divorce case was going on between them in the District Court of Delhi. Dr. Mohan Ram had filed for custody of their son, but according to Githa Hariharan, he had shown very little interest in Rishab’s life and wasn’t involved in raising him. In fact, she had already filed a case for maintenance for herself and Rishab, since she was the one taking care of the child.

In 1984, Githa Hariharan decided to invest in 9% Relief Bonds offered by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in her son’s name. She filled out the forms and mentioned herself as Rishab’s natural guardian — which seemed fair, as she was the one actually looking after him.

But the RBI rejected her application. They said that under Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father is the natural guardian, and the mother can only become guardian ‘after him.’ RBI took this to mean that the mother can act as guardian only after the father’s death.

This decision was a shock to Ms. Hariharan. She believed that this interpretation of the law was unfair and discriminatory, especially since the father wasn’t even actively taking care of the child.

So, she filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India, arguing that the law was being interpreted in a way that violated her rights as a mother, and went against the constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination.

Issues

i. Whether Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which declares the father as the natural guardian ‘and after him’ the mother, discriminates against women and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution?

ii. Whether a mother can act as the natural guardian of a minor child during the father’s lifetime, especially when the father is either indifferent or incapable of acting in the child’s best interests?

Analysis:

• The Court closely examined Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which says- ‘The natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl, is the father, and after him, the mother.’

• The key phrase in question was ‘after him’. The RBI had understood this to mean that the mother can be a guardian only after the father dies. As the father (Dr. Mohan Ram) was still alive, the RBI rejected Githa Hariharan's application.

• The Court said that such a narrow and literal reading of ‘after him’ is outdated and problematic in today's context.

• The Court emphasized that personal laws must be interpreted in the light of the Constitution, especially Article 14 – guarantees equality before the law and Article 15(1) – prohibits the State from discriminating on the grounds of sex.

• The Court made an important observation that if a law gives automatic legal preference to a father over a mother solely based on gender, it is unconstitutional.

• It was pointed out that in real life mothers, like Githa Hariharan, are often the primary caregivers. Some fathers, like Dr. Mohan Ram in this case, may be uninterested or uninvolved in the child’s upbringing.

• The Court asked a crucial question that why should a mother be denied the right to act as guardian if she is the one actually caring for the child?

• So, the judges gave a new and progressive meaning to the words ‘after him’. They said it should mean ‘in the absence of the father,’ not just after his death. ‘Absence’ includes situations where the father is physically absent, is not mentally or emotionally involved or refuses to act in the child’s best interest.

• The Court also focused on the principle of child welfare. In any guardianship matter, the child’s well-being must come first — not just technical rules or traditional roles.

• They explained that guardianship is a responsibility, not a title. Whoever can better serve the needs and interests of the child — whether father or mother — should be recognized as the natural guardian.

• The Court said that interpretations of personal laws must be gender-neutral, in tune with modern realities and consistent with constitutional values.

Judgement

The Supreme Court of India delivered a progressive and landmark judgment in favour of Githa Hariharan. It held that the expression ‘after him’ in Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, does not mean ‘after the death of the father’, but should instead be interpreted as ‘in the absence of the father.’ The Court explained that ‘absence’ includes not just physical absence, but also circumstances where the father is unwilling, incapable, or uninterested in fulfilling his responsibilities as a guardian. Therefore, in situations where the mother is the primary caregiver and is actively involved in the child’s upbringing, she should be fully recognized as the natural guardian. The Court emphasized that gender cannot be a basis for denying a parent their legal rights, and any such interpretation would be in violation of the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 14 and 15. The Court concluded that the welfare of the child must always be the paramount consideration, and the law must be read in a way that reflects modern realities, gender justice, and constitutional values. As a result, Githa Hariharan was declared competent to act as her son's natural guardian, even during the lifetime of the father.

Conclusion:

The Githa Hariharan case marked a significant step forward in promoting gender equality in personal laws. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the term ‘after him’ brought much-needed clarity and justice by recognizing that mothers can also be natural guardians during the lifetime of the father, especially when the father is absent, unwilling, or uninvolved. This judgment ensured that outdated and patriarchal readings of the law do not override the best interests of the child or the constitutional right to equality. The case serves as a powerful reminder that laws must evolve with time and reflect the realities of modern families, where caregiving is not determined by gender, but by love, responsibility, and presence in a child’s life.