The appellant, an educated Christian woman, gave birth to her son in 2010 and raised him as a single mother without either assistance from or involvement of the putative father. When the appellant tried to make her son the nominee in her Bank savings and insurance policies, she was required to furnish either the details of the putative father or a guardianship certificate from the Court. Her application under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 to declare her as the sole guardian of her son was dismissed citing her refusal to name the putative father. Her appeal to the High Court was also dismissed as it reasoned that the natural father can have an interest in the welfare of the child even if there is no marriage and he would be a necessary party to the guardianship application. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the single unwed mother is entitled to be the sole guardian of her son in light of the facts of the case where the father has not expressed any interest or concern. The mother’s insistence that the father not be publicly notified is reasonable given the putative father is a married man with his own family and is an uninvolved father. Thus, the best interest of the child and the welfare principle require that this requirement not be insisted upon. The Court also relied on the fundamental right to privacy of the Appellant which would be violated if she is forced to disclose the name and particulars of the father of her child. While not directly invoking equal protection, the Court also noted the comparative disadvantage faced by Christian mothers as compared to single unwed Hindu mothers who are legally regarded as the guardian of their child by virtue of their maternity alone. Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 (‘CRC’) were also relied upon by the Court in addition to the provisions in the guardianship laws in other common law jurisdictions to support their decision.
Tribunales:
Supreme Court of India
País:
India
ROL/RIT de identificación:
Civil Appeal no 5003 of 2015, (2015) 10 SCC 1
