CENTRE FOR ACADEMIC LEGAL RESEARCH | JOURNAL OF APPLICABLE LAW &

JURISPRUDENCE

Volume 1 | Issue 1

“Guardianship Under Muslim Law: A Mere Prejudice Against Women in

India”

By: Aamena Chhagan (3rd Year, School of Excellence in Law, Chennai)

& Jahnavi. S (3rd Year, School of Excellence in Law, Chennai)

The following research/scholar work is under Centre for Study of Contemporary Legal Issues. The copyright

over this material is held by CALR as per the CALR Policy 2020.

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to delve into the current statutory law on the matter of natural

guardianship under the Muslim personal law and assess the conditions under which natural

guardianship of a child should be provided to women as applicable to men under Muslim

personal law. Furthermore, the judicial response to the present issue is evaluated through the

assistance of varied decided case laws. In addition, this paper seeks to identify an insight into

the response of the judiciary to the principle of "the child's best interest" in the field of

determining the matter of guardianship and custody. In the Law Commission report of

‘Reforms in Guardianship and Custody Laws in India’, which is submitted to the ministry, the

commission says that the child’s welfare must be paramount in any decision relating to

guardianship and custody of a child. Muslim women have been denied their legal rights since

times immemorial and their right of attaining the title of a natural guardian has been

distinctively suppressed under the Muslim personal laws. This suppression of guardianship

rights of their legitimate children clearly violates their fundamental rights which have been

guaranteed to them under the Indian constitution. Besides, international treaties and

conventions are also being disparaged. The very words “natural guardian” indubitably include

both, the mother and father of a child and there is no reasonable ground on which women

should be deprived of being a natural guardian of her own children. Mere traditional,

conservative and arbitrary implications, which have no legal or just standing cannot hold a

place in the Indian legal system and certainly cannot deny women or any person of their

constitutional rights. The article resolves with some suggestions and it is substantiated that

“Equality must not remain mere idle incantation, but it must become a living reality for the

large masses of people”. Therefore, equality should be made a living reality by allowing

Muslim women Natural Guardianship Rights, thus promoting “EQUALITY AMONG

EQUALS” as enshrined under our Indian Constitution.

Introduction

A child is presumed to have no competence to safeguard his or her personal welfare. Law

henceforth, necessitates that some adult must protect the minor’s person or property and do

everything on his or her behalf since such a minor is lawfully incompetent. An individual who

is empowered under the law to protect the person or property of a minor1 is called a guardian.

Under Muslim law, guardians are obliged for the purpose of a wedding, for protecting the

minor’s person and property.

Guardianship of a minor person means complete supervision of the minor’s personality. It

implies the maintenance and prosperity of the child including the responsibility to maintain it.

It is more than simply custody of the kid upon a particular age. Under Muslim law, is called

HIZANAT. They are sometimes perceived to intend the same thing. But under Muslim law,

these two attributes of guardianship are different and are overseen by different laws. The

guardianship of a child means complete supervision of the child throughout its minority. In the

absence of the father or his executor, the paternal grandfather, being the natural guardian, is

responsible for the minor.2 On the contrary ‘custody of the child’ simply means a physical

possession (custody) of the child upon a particular age. Although the mother is not the natural

guardian of the child under Muslim law, she has a right to the custody of the child, till the child

attains a specific age.3 But the father or the paternal grandfather has control over the minor

throughout his minority.

“Guardianship of a person in relation to a child belongs primarily to its father, the mother’s

being only a pre-emptive right to keep the father away for a legally prescribed period

only from a particular aspect of the guardianship of the person, namely, the custody and

physical upbringing of the child”.4 This was stated by Tahir Mohmood.

It may be said, therefore that mother has a right to the custody of her kid for a certain period of

time because except her no one can handle and nurse a child during its infancy. But her custody

of the child is subject to the supervision of the father who, as a legal guardian, is under an

obligation to offer means for the upbringing of the child.

1 Rajalakshmi And Ors. v. Minor Ramachandran And Anr. (1966) 2 M.L.J 420 2 Khushbu Rafiq, Minority and Guardianship, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA E-JOURNAL (May 2, 2021 18:09 P.M),

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2094-minority-and-

guardianship.html#:~:text=Father%20or%20his%20executor%20or,child%20upon%20a%20certain%20age. 3 Gohar begum v. Suggi, A.I.R 1960 S.C. 63. 4 VIth edition, Dr.R.K.Sinha, Muslim law, page 122.

Who Is A Guardian?

The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 states a ‘guardian’ as ‘a person having the care of the

person of a minor or of his property, or of both his person and property’5. The Quran is the

foundation of the law relating to guardianship and, consequently, there is very little room for

differences between Sunni and Shia schools. The term ‘ Guardianship’ (wilayat) connotes the

guardianship and overall supervision of the child during his minority

Who Is A Minor?

A person who has not attained the age of majority is considered to be a minor. Under Muslim

law, the majority and puberty are considered to be the same. On the completion of the fifteenth

year, it is presumed that puberty/majority has been attained.6 After the attainment of this age,

he or she is free to do things related to marriage, dower, and divorce. Corresponding to section

2 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (as amended in 1978), the minimum age for

marriage is 21 years for males and 18 years for females. the attainment of puberty any person

is entitled to act in all matters affecting his or her status or his or her property, which has been

materially altered by the Indian Majority Act.

Muslims are governed by the Indian Majority Act which prescribes 18 years as the age of

majority7 with respect to the other matters of guardianship of person and property. Thus, the

minority will terminate on the completion of 18 years in cases of wills, waqfs, etc. In all other

matters, a person’s minority continuous until the completion of 18 years. Until then the court

under the Guardians and the wards Act has the power to appoint a guardian of his person or

property or both. If done so the age of minority is prolonged until the minor has completed the

age of 21 years.

Current Position Of Natural Guardianship Under Muslim Law.

In all the schools of Muslim law, the father is deemed as a guardian of a minor, and the term

guardian here is considered to be parallel to that of a natural guardian, and the mother in all

schools of Muslim law isn’t recognized as a guardian, natural or otherwise, even after the

demise of the father. The father's right of guardianship exists irrespective of the fact that the

5 Sec. 4(2) of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 6 Ramendra Pratap Singh, Study of Mohammadan Law with Reference to Guardianship, LEGAL SERVICE

INDIA E-JOURNAL (May 2, 2021 18:09 P.M), http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2914-study-of-

mohammadan-law-with-reference-to-guardianship.html 7 Siellent Bhanu, Guardianship (Wilayat), THE BACCALAUREUS, (May 2, 2021 18:16 P.M),

https://thebaccalaureus.wordpress.com/2020/07/19/guardianship-wilayat/

mother, or any other female, is entitled to the custody of the minor. The father has the right to

control their upbringing, education, and the religion of the minor. Therefore, until the time the

father of the minor is alive, he shall be the sole natural guardian of his minor children.8 The

right as a natural guardian with respect to the father extends only to his minor legitimate

children. The father is not entitled to guardianship or the custody of his minor illegitimate

children. In Muslim law, the mother is only entitled to the custody of her minor illegitimate

children and not their guardianship.9 Thus, a Muslim woman even after bearing her child for

months in her womb is not considered as their natural guardian but is only a custodian up to a

certain age.

Among the Sunnis, the father is recognized as the sole natural guardian of the minor children.

After the demise of the father, the guardianship is passed on to the executor, who is in turn

chosen by the father himself. Among the Shias, after the father, the guardianship of the minors

passes on to the grandfather, regardless of the fact that the father has appointed an executor,

the executor appointed by the father can obtain the title of natural guardianship only in the

absence of the grandfather. No other individual is entitled to be the natural guardian, not even

the father’s brother. In the absence of the grandfather, guardianship is given to the grandfather's

executor, if any.10

The mother is entitled -

i. In Hanafi law, to the custody of the female child until puberty and male child until he

has attained 7 years;11

ii. In Shia law, to the custody of the female child until the age of 7 years and male child

until the age of 2 years.

This right of custody is valid even if she is divorced but once she remarries, this right ceases.

In contrast, remarriage by the father does not terminate his right to guardianship12.

The implications on the mother for not being the natural guardian-

i. She cannot take away the child without the permission of the father even during the

period when she is entitled to custody.13

8 Imambandi v. Mutsaddi, (1918) 45 Cal. 887 9 Gohar Begum v Suggi, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 63. 10 Romit Agrawal and Gorang Vashistha, Guardianship Under Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Parsi Laws, LEGAL

SERVICE INDIA E-JOURNAL (May 2, 2021 18:20 P.M), https://legalserviceindia.com/article/l35-

Guardianship.html 11 Farzanabi v. S.K. Ayub Dadamiya, A.I.R. 1989 BOM. 357. 12 Khatija Begum v. Ghulam Dastagir, A.I.R. 1976 A.P. 128. 13 Imambandi v. Mutsaddi, (1918) 45 IA 73(Privy Council)

ii. A mother is a de facto guardian as compared to the father who is a de jure guardian.

She is not entitled to alienate or make any dealings of the minor’s property14 while the

father may freely do so for the maintenance of the child15.

iii. She can impose no legal obligation on the child. The father possesses all legal rights to

decide about a child’s future- education, schooling, health, marriage, etc.

Illegitimate Child

An illegitimate child belongs legitimately to neither of his parents and is in every sense of the

word filius nullius but should be left in the care of the mother for the purpose of ensuring her

proper nutrition and welfare before she reaches the age of 7 years. Before that, it will make its

own choice from which of the parents it will get, or it can all live apart.

Gohar Begum, in holding one Trivedi, a Hindu, was a singing lady. She was the unmarried

Muslim mother of a natural daughter, Anjum, who was accepted as his daughter by Trivedi.

Anjum was sent to live with her mother's friend Nazma Begum who later refused to abandon

her saying she had a great love for the child and had ample means to care for Anjum. The

Supreme Court ruled that in Mohammedan law the mother of an illegitimate daughter is entitled

to his custody, and the failure to return the infant to her mother was unlawful detention. So

Anjum was handed over to her mother by order of the Supreme Court.

“Welfare Of The Child”: Historical Evolution

The father was regarded, conventionally in common law, as the sole guardian of the child's

personality and properties. The father's authority in every aspect of the child's life was

considered absolute, including his / her actions, schooling, faith, and maintenance, and even

the courts refused to interfere with the same. Mothers had no power over children because

mothers had no independent legal status; their identities were forged upon marriage with that

of their husbands. When divorce became possible and mothers started to have independent

legal life and residency, the courts began to accept their right, if not right, to have custody of

the children. However, the rights of the father remained supreme despite a series of legislations

– starting with the Custody of Infants Act, 1839, in the UK that enabled the mother to claim

custody over minor children.

14 Gayasuddin v. Ilah Tala Wagf of Masuma, A.I.R. 1936 ALL. 39; M.Faiz v. Iftikhar, A.I.R. 1932 P.C. 78. 15 Ahmadullah v. Mafiruddin Ahmad, A.I.R. 1973 Gau. 56

Two innovations helped to abolish parental power in favor of children under English law. First,

in a variety of court decisions, the courts argued that the parens patriae jurisdiction – an even

higher parental authority of the state – would replace the father's natural guardianship and grant

custody based on what promoted the child's wellbeing. Second, in a series of legislation, the

British Parliament changed the focus from parental rights to child protection and gave father

and mother equal legal status in deciding guardianship and custody. The Custody of Infants

Act, 1873, allowed the mother to have custody of the minor until the age of sixteen years old

and lifted the prohibition on petitions made by mothers who had committed adultery. The

Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886, recognized the mother's equal rights over the care, access,

and appointment of a testamentary guardian, and empowered the court to appoint and remove

guardians under certain circumstances. The Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925, puts the

claims of the mother and the father on an equal basis in custody litigation and provides that the

child's wellbeing is of "first and foremost concern." Eventually, the equivalent rights were

granted to the mother under The Guardianship of Minors Act, 1973, with respect to the rights

which were provided to the fathers under the common law. Those rights could be exercised by

the mother without the concurrence of the father. The court is authorized to decide the matter

based on the principle of welfare of the child in case the parents were unsuccessful in reaching

an agreement with respect to the minor.

The colonial state enacted The Guardians and Wards Act in India in 1890, which persisted

the legacy of Common law, of the supremacy of the paternal right in guardianship and custody

of children. Although Sections 7 and 17 of the Act stipulated that courts would act to further

the welfare of the child, Sections 19 and 25 of the original Act subordinated the same to the

father's supremacy. Only The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, enacted by the

independent Indian state, provides for the minor's wellbeing to be the primary concern that

supersedes all other considerations.

“Best Interest Of The Child” In International Human Rights Law

While the concept of "child welfare" dominates the domestic legal system, international human

rights legislation provides for a comparable legal norm. The United Nations Convention on

the Rights of the Child (hereinafter CRC) articulates that, “the child's best interests shall be

the prime concern in all activities relating to children, whether carried out by public or private

societal care establishments, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies”.16

The Convention directs States Parties to ensure that "both parents have shared responsibility

for the child's upbringing and development."17 The CRC stipulates that a child will be parted

from his or her parents if "the parents of the child mistreat the child physically or mentally or

neglect the child, or if the parents live apart, a determination must be made as to where the

child resides."18 In general, child safety is malleable, adaptable, and reveals present insights of

family within society as a measure for a final decision.19

In its General Comment 14, The Committee noted that it is "useful to draw up a non-exhaustive

and non-hierarchical list of elements which any decision-maker who has to decide a child's

best interests should include in an evaluation of best interests."20

The Committee proposed that the following factors may be relevant: the views of the child; the

identity of the child (such as gender, sexual orientation, national origin, faith and beliefs,

cultural identity, and personality); the preservation of the family environment and the

maintenance of relationships (including, where appropriate, extended family or community);

child care, protection and safety; any situation of vulnerability (disability, minority status,

homelessness, abuse victims, etc.); and the right of the child to health and education. Since

time immemorial, Muslim women have been denied their legal rights, and their ability to

receive the title of a natural guardian has been explicitly restricted under Muslim personal laws.

This suppression of their legitimate children's guardianship rights violates their fundamental

rights under the Indian constitution. Besides, international treaties and conventions are also

being disparaged.

Violation Of Article 14 By Denying Natural Guardianship Rights Under Muslim Law.

No personal law can override any citizen's fundamental rights. 21 It is also concluded from the

precedents of Shayra Bano v. Union of India22 and Indian Young Lawyers Assn. v. State of

Kerala23 that personal laws may be challenged, judicial review may be pursued and they may

16 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 3, (1989) 17 Id., at Art. 18 18 Id., at Art. 9. 19 Gilmore, Stephen, Great Debates: Family Law, Palgrave Macmillian, (2014) pp. 76-83 20 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 14 on the Right of the Child to Have His or Her

Best Interests Taken as a Primary Consideration (art. 3, para. 1), U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/14 (May 29, 2013). 21 Abdul Khader v. K.Pechiammal, (2015) 2 MLJ (Crl) 210. 22 (2017) 9 S.C.C. 1. 23 Writ Petition (Civil) no. 373 of 2006.

also be found void for being against the Constitution. "LEX SUPREMA"24 re-establishes,

with the confidence that 'the law of the land is supreme'. From the above submissions, it is

obvious per se that Muslim women are denied equal rights by virtue of their sex. It is of the

utmost importance to remember that the constitutional provision of Art. 14 demands that there

be no arbitrary discrimination and that all individuals are treated fairly under the same

conditions and circumstances.25 Moreover, it is argued that "Equality must not remain mere

idle incantation, but must become a living reality for the masses of people."26 It is therefore

humbly prayed that equality should become a living reality27 by allowing Muslim women

Natural Guardianship Rights to promote "EQUALITY AMONG EQUALS," as enshrined in

our Constitution.

Test Of Proportionality And Wednesbury Principles Not Satisfied

According to Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, personal the law must be

considered while at the same time granting the guardianship. When reading this section along

with the laws of guardianship under The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act,

1937, this section means that Muslim women cannot obtain the privileges of guardianship as

required by personal law. Such administrative action in India affecting women's fundamental

freedoms must be tested against the background of proportionality.28 A decision is

proportionate where: (a) the objective is sufficiently significant to justify the restriction of a

fundamental right; (b) the measures intended to meet the objective is rationally related to it,

and (c) the means used to impede the rights are no more than necessary to achieve the

objective.29

It is humbly brought to this court's notice that there is no reasonable goal to be obtained by

denying a natural guardianship of a mother. Under Muslim Personal Law, this rule merely

includes granting women inferior status as opposed to men. Limiting the constitutional right to

equality of a woman without any intention does not meet the proportionality test.

A judgment is proportionate if:

• the objective is sufficiently important to warrant the restriction of a constitutional right,

• the measures intended to accomplish the objective are rationally related to it and

24 M.P. JAIN, Indian Constitutional Law, 876 (7th ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Publications, Nag.,

2016). 25 Northern India Caterers Private v. State Of Punjab And Anr.,(1967) 3 S.C.R. 399. 26 Dr.Pradeep Jain v. Union Of India, (1984) 3 S.C.C. 654. 27 BonduRamaswamy v. Bangalore Developmental Authority, (2010) 7 S.C.C. 121. 28 Om Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3689, 3702. 29 DeFreitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Land and Housing, 1999 1A.C. 69, 80.

• the means used to restrict the rights are no more than necessary to achieve the objective.30

The WEDNESBURY UNREASONABLENESS theory falls into effect when an

administrative decision is challenged as arbitrary.31 It is a principle that applies to a decision

that is so absurd in its violation of logic or accepted moral principles that it could not have been

made by any reasonable person who applied his mind to the matter to be decided.32

In the present issue, excluding the mother from any rights pertaining to the minor’s person or

property is not only against the moral standards but also has no objective or logic behind it.

The mother is being denied any legal rights for the upbringing of her child. Such action is

unreasonable, immoral, and arbitrary and thus, consequentially is violative of

the WEDNESBURY UNREASONABLENESS PRINCIPLE.

Violation Of Article 14 By Denying Natural Guardianship Rights Under Muslim Law

The practice of denying guardianship rights to a Muslim woman per se violates Art. 15(1) of

the Indian Constitution. It is also pertinent to note that gender bias in any form is opposed to

constitutional norms33. In furtherance, ‘discrimination’ has been defined as under:

“discriminatory means affording different treatment to different persons attributed wholly to

their respective discrimination by sex, etc”34. The Muslim man is being given all rights while

a woman is being denied every right despite both of them having equal standing in the child’s

life. Such differential treatment without reasonable reason is in violation of Art.15 which

stands for non-tolerance of discrimination based on sex, etc. There is no other ground for such

discrimination BUT FOR SEX and thus, the purpose of the court is to declare guardianship

laws under the Muslim Personal Law as void as "FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT CAELUM" (Let

justice be done though the heavens fall) be the aim of the court.

Violation Of International Treaties And Conventions.

It is germane to note that Art.51(c) of the Constitution demands respect for treaty obligations

and international law. As per Article 1 of the CEDAW,35 discrimination against women is

30 Om Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3689, 3702. 31 Om Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3689, 3702. 32 Council of Civil Service Unions. v. Minister for the Civil Services, (1984) 3 All ER 935, 951. 33 Anuj Garg and Ors.v. Hotel Assn. of India and Ors., (2008) 3 S.C.C. 1. 34 Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1823. 35 UN Convention for Elimination of all forms of Discrimination and Against Women (CEDAW) adopted in 1979

by UNGA. Instituted on 3rs September, 1981. Ratified by Indiana on 9th July, 1993.

described as follows: “any division, exclusion or constraint made based on sex that has the

consequence or intent of weakening or invalidating women's recognition, satisfaction or

exercise, regardless of their matrimonial status, based on equivalence between men and

women, of basic rights and fundamental liberty in the political, economic and social, cultural,

civil or any other field.”

Further, Art.15 of the same convention states that both men and women must have absolute

equality in matters of legal capacity. In the present scenario, women are being denied the legal

capacity of being a natural guardian while men are granted the same. Art.16 of CEDAW also

states that similar rights and duties must be ensured to both mother and father in the concept of

guardianship. But the Muslim personal law blatantly disregards these articles.

Art.9 of the UNCRC36 enunciates that no child shall be separated from his or her parent

against their will. Only if the separation is necessary for the best interests of the child it can be

undertaken. In the case at hand, a mother ceases to have custody once the boy is 7 years old

and the girl hits puberty. It can be inferred from this that the child will after the prescribed age

have to reside with his father whether or not he wants to. He will be separated from the mother

even if his best interests lay in residing with her.

36 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child (UNCRC) Adopted by UNGA in 1989. Came to force on 2nd

September, 1990. Ratified by India on 11th December,1992.

Conclusion:

It should be noted that the role of women in the field of guardianship is usually relegated to a

secondary position and is regarded as the primary custodian in matters of custody. On the other

hand, since matters relating to the minor's property require a higher degree of ability and

prudence, it is put in the exclusive jurisdiction of the guardian who declares the father the first

natural guardian. It is time for both the father and mother to be accepted as equal guardians as

in the case of adoption through the Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2010. An incongruity

that cannot be ignored in the absence of a uniform civil code even 27 years after independence,

particularly given all the emphasis on secularism, science, and modernization.

The persistence of various personal laws that discriminate between men and women infringes

the fundamental rights and the preamble to the constitution, which guarantees all people equal

treatment. It is also against the national spirit of integration and secularism.

Suggestions:

Our recommendations on amendments to existing laws are only indicators of the direction in

which consistency has to be achieved. We also advocate prompt enforcement of Article 44's

constitutional guideline by the introduction of a uniform Civil Code. With changing times, the

need has emerged for all citizens, regardless of religion, to have a Common Civil Code,

ensuring that their fundamental and constitutional rights are preserved.

In this count no one seems to have any qualms. Although stressing that the foundations of

secularism can only be further enhanced by introducing a Uniform Civil Code, in Mahatma

Gandhi's words: From my imagination, “I do not want India to grow only in one religion, i.e.

to be solely Hindu or solely Christian or wholly Mussalman, but I want it to be entirely tolerant,

with its religions functioning side by side”. It cannot be denied that personal laws have always

sought to provide a simple path to custody and acceptance. The legislature also adopted the

GWA to provide redress for those whose provisions on adoption are not provided for by

personal laws. Existing legislation cannot be considered useless as it has borne fruit, but with

changing times and growing cases leading to a discrepancy, it is time for the lacunae to be

fulfilled and for uniform legislation to bring about equality of status and equal rights for all.

The need for a uniform civil code has arisen, as all religions' personal laws have become

stagnant and are unable to evolve at the same rate as a society.

Research/Scholar Index

Rajalakshmi And Ors. v. Minor Ramachandran And Anr. (1966) 2 M.L.J 420

Khushbu Rafiq, Minority and Guardianship, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA E-JOURNAL (May 2, 2021

18:09 P.M), http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2094-minority-and-

guardianship.html#:~:text=Father%20or%20his%20executor%20or,child%20upon%20a%20certain%2

0age.

Gohar begum v. Suggi, A.I.R 1960 S.C. 63.

VIth edition, Dr.R.K.Sinha, Muslim law, page 122.

Sec. 4(2) of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Ramendra Pratap Singh, Study of Mohammadan Law with Reference to Guardianship, LEGAL

SERVICE INDIA E-JOURNAL (May 2, 2021 18:09 P.M),

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2914-study-of-mohammadan-law-with-reference-to-

guardianship.html

Siellent Bhanu, Guardianship (Wilayat), THE BACCALAUREUS, (May 2, 2021 18:16 P.M),

https://thebaccalaureus.wordpress.com/2020/07/19/guardianship-wilayat/

Imambandi v. Mutsaddi, (1918) 45 Cal. 887

Gohar Begum v Suggi, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 63.

Romit Agrawal and Gorang Vashistha, Guardianship Under Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Parsi Laws,

LEGAL SERVICE INDIA E-JOURNAL (May 2, 2021 18:20 P.M), https://legalserviceindia.com/article/l35-Guardianship.html

Farzanabi v. S.K. Ayub Dadamiya, A.I.R. 1989 BOM. 357.

Khatija Begum v. Ghulam Dastagir, A.I.R. 1976 A.P. 128.

Imambandi v. Mutsaddi, (1918) 45 IA 73(Privy Council)

Gayasuddin v. Ilah Tala Wagf of Masuma, A.I.R. 1936 ALL. 39; M.Faiz v. Iftikhar, A.I.R. 1932 P.C.

78.

Ahmadullah v. Mafiruddin Ahmad, A.I.R. 1973 Gau. 56

Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 3, (1989)

Id., at Art. 18

Id., at Art. 9.

Gilmore, Stephen, Great Debates: Family Law, Palgrave Macmillian, (2014) pp. 76-83

Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 14 on the Right of the Child to Have His

or Her Best Interests Taken as a Primary Consideration (art. 3, para. 1), U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/14 (May

29, 2013).

Abdul Khader v. K.Pechiammal, (2015) 2 MLJ (Crl) 210.

(2017) 9 S.C.C. 1.

Writ Petition (Civil) no. 373 of 2006. M.P. JAIN, Indian Constitutional Law, 876 (7th ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Publications,

Nag., 2016).

Northern India Caterers Private v. State Of Punjab And Anr.,(1967) 3 S.C.R. 399.

Dr.Pradeep Jain v. Union Of India, (1984) 3 S.C.C. 654.

BonduRamaswamy v. Bangalore Developmental Authority, (2010) 7 S.C.C. 121.

Om Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3689, 3702.

DeFreitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Land and Housing, 1999 1A.C.

69, 80.

Om Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3689, 3702.

Om Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3689, 3702.

Council of Civil Service Unions. v. Minister for the Civil Services, (1984) 3 All ER 935, 951.

Anuj Garg and Ors.v. Hotel Assn. of India and Ors., (2008) 3 S.C.C. 1.

Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1823.

UN Convention for Elimination of all forms of Discrimination and Against Women (CEDAW) adopted

in 1979 by UNGA. Instituted on 3rs September, 1981. Ratified by Indiana on 9th July, 1993.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child (UNCRC) Adopted by UNGA in 1989.

Came to force on 2nd September, 1990. Ratified by India on 11th December,1992.