Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956

⭐ HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956 (HMGA)

 

⭐ HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956 (HMGA)

Full Explanation — Sections 1 to 13 + Case Laws + Amendments


🔶 Section 1 — Short title, extent and commencement

Meaning

  • Name: Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956

  • Extent: Whole of India (Originally except J&K; now applicable after 2019).

  • Commencement: 25 August 1956.


🔶 Section 2 — Application of the Act

Applies to:

  • Hindus

  • Buddhists

  • Jains

  • Sikhs

Does NOT apply to:

  • Muslims

  • Christians

  • Parsis

  • Jews

Case law:
📌 M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu (2010)
— A person living as a Hindu is governed by Hindu law.


🔶 Section 3 — Definitions

Important definitions:
  • Minor = a person below 18 years (or 21 years in case of court-appointed guardian under GWA Act).

  • Guardian includes:

    • Natural guardian

    • Testamentary guardian

    • Court-appointed guardian

    • Any person having legal responsibility for the minor.

Case law:

📌 Gita Hariharan v. RBI (1999)
— “After the father” includes situations where the father is alive but incapable; thus mother is also a natural guardian.


                                         —————————–

                               🟦 Chapter II — Natural Guardians

                                         —————————–

🔶 Section 4 — General definitions

(Refers to terms like ‘guardian’ used in the Act.)


🔶 Section 5 — Overriding effect of the Act

If any Hindu custom, usage, or other law conflicts with this Act, the HMGA overrides it.


🔶 Section 6 — Natural Guardians of a Hindu minor

Natural guardian of:

(a) A Hindu boy or unmarried girl

Order:

  1. Father

  2. Mother

—but father is not automatically preferred; welfare of the child is supreme.

(b) Illegitimate child

  1. Mother

  2. Then father

(c) Married girl

—She is not considered a minor after marriage.

Case laws:
📌 Gita Hariharan v. RBI (1999)
— Mother is an equal natural guardian, not secondary.

📌 Jijabai Vithalrao Gajre v. Pathan Khan (1970)
— If father neglects, mother becomes natural guardian.


🔶 Section 7 — Natural guardianship of adopted son

The adoptive father or adoptive mother becomes natural guardian of the adopted boy.


🔶 Section 8 — Powers of natural guardian

Guardian can:

  • Manage minor’s property

Guardian cannot, without court’s permission:

  • Sell

  • Gift

  • Mortgage

  • Exchange

  • Lease (more than 5 years or beyond minority)

If guardian violates this:
➡️ The transfer is voidable at the minor’s option after attaining majority.

Case laws:
📌 Manik Chandra v. Ram Chandra (1981)
— A sale without court permission is voidable.

📌 Rama Subbarayalu v. Rengammal
— Every act of guardian must promote minor’s welfare.


🔶 Section 9 — Testamentary guardians

A guardian appointed by a will.

  • Father can appoint a guardian for his minor legitimate children only if the mother is not alive.

  • Mother can appoint a guardian only after father’s death.

  • For illegitimate child, the mother can appoint a testamentary guardian.


🔶 Section 10 — Minor cannot act as guardian

A minor cannot be appointed as the guardian of another minor.


🔶 Section 11 — De-facto guardian not to deal with minor’s property

A person who is not legally a guardian (de-facto guardian)
➡️ cannot sell, mortgage, or transfer minor’s property.

Such transactions are void.

Case law:
📌 Madhegowda v. Ankegowda (2002)
— Any transfer by a de-facto guardian is void.


🔶 Section 12 — Guardian not to be appointed for minor’s undivided interest in joint Hindu family property

  • Court will NOT appoint a guardian for a minor’s undivided share in joint family property.

  • The Karta manages it.

Case law:
📌 Smt. Sitabai v. Ramachandra (1970)
— Karta can manage minor’s interest unless he acts against welfare.


🔶 Section 13 — Welfare of minor to be the paramount consideration

This is the most important section.

Key rule:

Whenever appointing or removing a guardian, the ONLY guiding factor is:
➡️ WELFARE OF THE CHILD

Not:

  • Father’s rights

  • Custom

  • Personal law

Case laws:
📌 Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009)
— Custody dispute: Welfare of child dominates parental rights.

📌 Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal (1973)
— Welfare includes: emotional, moral, educational wellbeing.


=======================

🟩 AMENDMENTS (Brief)

=======================

Although the HMGA has not been substantially amended, these are relevant:

1. Gender equality interpretation (Judicial amendment)

After Gita Hariharan (1999), mother = father as natural guardian.
(This is judicial interpretation, not statutory amendment.)

2. Applicability to J&K (post–2019)

After abrogation of Article 370, the Act now applies to J&K.

3. Adoption-related reforms (JJ Act 2015–2020)

Some guardianship/adoption functions shifted to Juvenile Justice Act,
but HMGA itself remains mostly unchanged.


===========================

🟦 Complete Section Summary (1–13)

===========================

SecTitleExplanation
1Short titleName, extent, commencement
2ApplicationApplies to Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists
3DefinitionsMinor, guardian etc.
4Guardian definitionGeneral definitions
5Overriding effectHMGA > custom
6Natural guardiansFather → Mother; welfare primary
7Adopted sonAdoptive parent is guardian
8Powers of guardianNeed court permission for property dealings
9Testamentary guardianGuardian through will
10Minor cannot be guardianSelf-explanatory
11De-facto guardianCannot deal with minor’s property
12Joint family propertyNo separate guardian; Karta manages
13Welfare of childSupreme consideration

For more detailed legal notes, case laws, bare acts, and latest judicial updates, visit our website — https://livelawcompany.comHere you’ll find high-quality law content, exam-oriented study material, and simplified explanations to boost your legal knowledge.

Scroll to Top