Question

In which of the following judgments was the constitutionality of Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 challenged?

• A. Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224
• B. Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, 1975 SCR (3) 967.
• C. Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228.
• D. Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhawati, 1956 SCR 838.
• A. Neither father nor mother
• B. Both father and mother.
• C. Mothe
• D. Father
• A. Mauami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli, (2008) 7 SCC 673
• B. Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1.
• C. Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42
• D. Jitender Arora v. Sukriti Arora, (2017) 3 SCC 726.
• A. Adoptive father
• B. Adoptive mother.
• C. Adoptive father and adoptive mother.
• D. Neither adoptive father nor adoptive mother.
• A. It is to secure the welfare of minor.
• B. Welfare of minor is of paramount consideration.
• C. It is not to secure the welfare of minor.
• D. Court is called upon in parens patriae to decide the best interest of the child
• A. Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67
• B. Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal, (2018) 9 SCC 691.
• C. Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, 2017 (8) SCC 746
• D. Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh, (2019) 14 SCC 162

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The correct option is (C) : Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228.

Answer 2

The question asks in which case the constitutionality of Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 was challenged. The approach is to recall what each listed case actually decided and check which one specifically dealt with a constitutional challenge to that guardianship provision.

1. Option (A) - Lily Thomas v. Union of India: this case dealt with the validity of conversion to another religion for the sole purpose of contracting a second marriage while the first marriage subsisted, a question of bigamy and personal law, unconnected to Section 6(a) of the guardianship statute.
2. Option (B) - Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane: this is a matrimonial cruelty case under the Hindu Marriage Act concerning the standard for proving cruelty as a ground for judicial separation, again unrelated to the constitutionality of the guardianship provision.
3. Option (C) - Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India: here, the constitutional validity of Section 6(a), which named the father as the natural guardian and the mother as guardian only "after" him, was directly challenged as discriminatory against mothers. The Supreme Court avoided striking the provision down by reading the word "after" to mean "in the absence of" rather than strictly "after the lifetime of", thereby upholding the section's constitutionality while giving the mother a meaningful role as natural guardian in appropriate circumstances. This is exactly the challenge the question refers to.
4. Option (D) - Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhawati: this is a matrimonial case concerning desertion as a ground for divorce, unconnected to the guardianship provision.

Only the Githa Hariharan case involved a direct constitutional challenge to Section 6(a) on grounds of gender discrimination between father and mother.

Hence, the correct answer is Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228.

Answer 3

The correct option is (D) : Father

Answer 4

The question asks who the natural guardian of a Hindu minor is under Hindu law. This is a matter of the statutory scheme under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, so the answer follows directly from what that provision lays down for a legitimate minor.

1. Option (A) - neither father nor mother: this cannot be correct, since the statute expressly names natural guardians for a Hindu minor rather than leaving the position vacant.
2. Option (B) - both father and mother: Section 6 does not place the father and mother on an equal, simultaneous footing as natural guardian; it sets out an order of priority rather than joint, co-equal guardianship from the outset.
3. Option (C) - Mother: under the statutory scheme, the mother is named as natural guardian only after the father, not as the first-named guardian, so this does not correctly state the primary position.
4. Option (D) - Father: Section 6 of the Act names the father as the natural guardian of a legitimate minor son or daughter, with the mother stepping into that role after him. This reflects the statute's stated order of priority for a legitimate Hindu minor.

Since the statute names the father first in the order of natural guardianship for a legitimate Hindu minor, that is the position the question is testing.

Hence, the correct answer is Father.

Answer 5

The correct option is (B) : Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1.

Answer 6

The question asks which of the listed judgments does NOT relate to the principle that the welfare of a minor is of paramount consideration. The way to solve this is to identify the actual subject matter each cited case dealt with, since three of them are custody cases applying that principle while one deals with an entirely different question.

1. Option (A) - Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli: this is a custody dispute in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the welfare of the child, not the technical or legal rights of either parent, must guide the custody decision, making it a direct application of the welfare principle.
2. Option (B) - Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun: this case concerned the legitimacy and inheritance rights of children born out of void or voidable marriages under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, addressing whether such children could claim a share in their parents' property. It is a case about legitimacy and succession, not about custody or the welfare of the minor being weighed as paramount in a custody dispute, so it stands apart from the other three.
3. Option (C) - Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal: this is again a custody case in which the Court held that the welfare of the child overrides technical considerations such as a prior consent decree, applying the same welfare-paramountcy principle.
4. Option (D) - Jitender Arora v. Sukriti Arora: this too is a custody matter decided on the touchstone of the child's welfare being the paramount consideration.

Since (A), (C) and (D) are all custody cases decided on the welfare-of-the-minor principle, while (B) deals with the separate question of legitimacy and inheritance rights, option (B) is the one that does not relate to the welfare principle.

Hence, the correct answer is Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1.

Answer 7

The correct option is (A) : Adoptive father

Answer 8

The question asks who is the natural guardian of an adopted child under Hindu law. Section 7 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 specifically addresses guardianship of an adopted son, and the answer follows from what that provision states.

1. Option (A) - Adoptive father: Section 7 provides that in the case of an adopted son, the adoptive father, and after him the adoptive mother, is the natural guardian, mirroring the order of priority applicable to a natural-born child. This matches the statutory position exactly.
2. Option (B) - Adoptive mother: the statute names the adoptive mother only as the guardian following the adoptive father, not as the first-named natural guardian, so naming her alone does not correctly state the primary position.
3. Option (C) - Adoptive father and adoptive mother: the statute does not confer simultaneous, joint natural guardianship on both from the outset; it sets a sequential order with the father first, so treating both as co-equal from the start does not reflect the statutory text.
4. Option (D) - neither adoptive father nor adoptive mother: this cannot be right, since the Act expressly names natural guardians for an adopted child rather than leaving the role unfilled.

Since Section 7 mirrors Section 6's order of priority and places the adoptive father first as natural guardian, that is the position being tested.

Hence, the correct answer is Adoptive father.

Answer 9

The correct option is (C) : It is not to secure the welfare of minor.

Answer 10

The question asks which statement is NOT correct regarding the parens patriae jurisdiction, the doctrine under which courts step in as a guardian-of-last-resort to protect those who cannot protect themselves, particularly minors. Each option should be tested against what this doctrine actually stands for.

1. Option (A) - it is to secure the welfare of the minor: this correctly describes the very purpose of the parens patriae jurisdiction, which exists precisely so that the court can step in and act to protect a minor's welfare when required.
2. Option (B) - welfare of the minor is of paramount consideration: this too correctly describes how courts exercise this jurisdiction, treating the child's welfare as the overriding factor above competing claims, including those of the parents.
3. Option (C) - it is not to secure the welfare of the minor: this directly contradicts the very foundation of the doctrine. Parens patriae exists specifically because the state, acting through its courts, assumes responsibility for the welfare of those, like minors, who cannot look after their own interests, so stating that the jurisdiction is not about securing that welfare inverts its actual purpose entirely.
4. Option (D) - the court is called upon in parens patriae to decide the best interest of the child: this is also a correct description, since deciding the child's best interest is precisely the exercise a court undertakes when invoking this jurisdiction.

Since (A), (B) and (D) all correctly describe the doctrine while (C) states the opposite of its actual purpose, (C) is the statement that is not correct.

Hence, the correct answer is It is not to secure the welfare of minor.

Answer 11

The correct option is (A) : Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67

Answer 12

The question asks which judgment relates to the concept of shared parenting. The way to solve this is to identify what each cited case actually dealt with and check which one specifically addresses arrangements for both parents to share parenting responsibilities.

1. Option (A) - Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan: in this case the Supreme Court, while dealing with a custody dispute during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings, discussed and endorsed the concept of shared parenting, recognising that a child benefits from meaningful contact with both parents rather than being placed exclusively with one to the total exclusion of the other. This directly matches the concept the question asks about.
2. Option (B) - Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal: this case dealt with the validity of a second marriage solemnised during the pendency of an appeal against a divorce decree, a question about the timing and legality of remarriage, not about custody or shared parenting.
3. Option (C) - Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur: this case concerned whether the statutory six-month cooling-off period for a divorce by mutual consent could be waived by the court in appropriate circumstances, a procedural question about divorce, unrelated to shared parenting.
4. Option (D) - Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh: this case dealt with the tenancy and eviction rights of a legal representative continuing a suit filed by a deceased plaintiff, an entirely different area of civil law with no connection to custody or parenting.

Only the Yashita Sahu case addresses the specific concept of both parents sharing parenting responsibilities rather than one parent's exclusive custody, which is what the question is asking for.

Hence, the correct answer is Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67.