WebMatch List I with List II and select the correct answer using the given below the lists: List I List II a. Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India 1. Adoption b. Kartar Singh through Bachan Singh v. Surjan Singh 2. Guardianship c. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli 3. Cruelty explained d. A. Jaychandra v. Aneel Kaur 4. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage … WebFeb 24, 2015 · 17. 16 In Ms. Githa Hariharan & Anr vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr58 , the Supreme Court diluted the severity of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act which declares a father as the sole natural guardian by expanding the definition of natural guardian and declaring the circumstances in which a Hindu Mother could also be treated as a …
GENDER INEQUALITY IN HINDU AND MUSLIM PERSONAL LAWS
WebMar 14, 2024 · The Petitioner, Ms. Githa Hariharan, and her Counsel argued that the RBI’s recommendation is arbitrary as it is discriminating, and Article 14 and Article 15 of the Indian Constitution does not allow this … WebIn Githa Hariharan vs Reserve Bank of India, which challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6, the Supreme Court deemed both mother and father as natural guardians of a … david bishop salem health
The rules around guardianship of minors - The Hindu
WebApr 1, 2006 · Githa Hariharan's case, challenging a Hindu guardianship rule providing that “after” the lifetime of the father, the mother is the child's guardian, gives rise to similar unease. ... Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1149, 1150. 35. Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (4 of 1869), § 10. WebCase Name Githa Hariharan & Anor v Reserve Bank of India & Anor and Another Writ Petition Topic Mother may be child’s guardian during father’s lifetime Category CHILDREN ... (Apparel Export Promotion Council v A K Chopra (India, Supreme Court, Civil Appeal Nos 226-227 of 1999, 20 Jan 1999, unreported); since reported in AIR 1999 WebApr 6, 2024 · In the case of Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, the Supreme Court held that a mother could be a natural guardian of a child and that a father could not unilaterally appoint a guardian without the mother’s consent. This judgment recognized the importance of parental care in a child’s life and the need to protect the child’s interest. david bithell wrexham council