Mother is natural guardian even during lifetime of father; clubbing provisions not unconstitutional

Sub-section (1A) of section 64, including clause (a) of the Explanation to said sub-section is constitutionally valid

Facts:

a) The assessing authority completed the assessment by clubbing the income of assessee’s two minor sons with her income as her income was greater than that of her husband;

b) The assessee contended that the provisions of clubbing the income of the minor child, infringed the right of equality as enshrined by article 14 of the Constitution of India and, thus, were ultra vires;

c) She further contended that clause (a) of the Explanation to section 64(1A), was violative of section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, according to which the father is the natural guardian and after him the mother is the natural guardian. Thus, the assessee filed instant writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of section 64(1A).

The High Court dismissed the petition with following observations:

1) HC relied on following interpretation of SC in case of Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) 104 Taxman 220:

1. Under the Hindu law both mother and father are the natural guardians of the minor sons or daughters;
2. Gender equality is one of the basic principles of our Constitution and in the event the word 'after' is to be read to mean a disqualification of a mother to act as a guardian during the lifetime of the father, the same would definitely run counter to the basic requirement of the constitutional mandate and would lead to a differentiation between male and female;
3. The father by reason of a dominant personality cannot be ascribed to have a preferential right over the mother in the matter of guardianship, since both fall within the same category

2) Thus, it cannot be said that the mother is not the natural guardian during the lifetime of the father or until he is disqualified from being the natural guardian;

3) When both mother and father are natural guardians, then adding the income of the minor child in the income of the parent, whose income is greater, can’t be said to be arbitrary, artificial or evasive of the object sought to be achieved;

4) Therefore, the constitutional validity of sub-section (1A) of section 64, including clause (a) of the Explanation to the said sub-section was to be upheld and the same were not violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India or section 6 of the Hindu Minority and the Guardianship Act -ANJU MEHRA V. UNION OF INDIA (2013) 38 taxmann.com 383 (Punjab & Haryana)