Judicial View of Woman KARTHA

 The possibility of female being the Karta in presence of senior male member is being ruled out. But the question is whether in the absence of the manager, whether by prolonged journeys abroad or by dying without leaving another manager to succeed him in his function, a female could act as a manager. No doubt, it is true that he can act as guardian of Hindu Minors by the Hindu Minority and Guardianship act, 1956 but it abstains her from interfering with the exclusive powers of managers to deal with the interests of minors in the Joint Family Property.

So, the solution lies in our religious text which is Dharmashastra. It says that alienation can be done by the wife of an absent, or the widow of a dead manager, of family property belonging to numerous minors, unable to enter into contractual relationships in their own persons, yet reasonable for maintaining dependants and carrying the various burdens of the family. Here, the benefit of the family is the touchestone, not the identity of the alienor. The acts of a female member acting as a manager should be positive for the benefit of the Family. Such acts will be binding upon the manager when he returns or appears on the scene by simply coming of age as the case may be. It is further supported by Katyana, Smritichandrika, Bhavasvamin and Yagnavalyka Smriti. Some of the Sanskrit text says -

"sishyantevasi-dasa-stri-vaiyavrittyakarais ca yat Kutumbahetor ucchinam vodhavyam tat Kutumbina"

The manager (or householder, actual or eventual) is liable to accept (or admit) all alienations made for the purposes of the Family by a pupil, apprentice, slave, wife, agent or bailiff.

Narada says-

"Na ca bharya-kritam rinam kathancit patyur abhavet  Apat kritad rite, pumsam kutumbartho hi vistarah"

A debt contracted by his wife never binds the husband, except that incurred in a time of distress: expenses for the benefit of the family fall upon males.

Even at this objection is being raised, ‘Are not women declared by the sastra to be incapable, or unfit for independence?” Wherever a male member of the family is available, his signature should be taken rather than that of any female’s acts. But the answer lies in the following statement. The women in question is de facto svantantra: as soon as the husband returns or her son reaches majority she becomes partantra again, but meanwhile the responsibility rests with her, and powers should obviously be allowed to her accordingly.

The Case Laws- In Support

The Nagpur position

In Hunoomanpersaud’s case3 which was one of the greatest cases in the history of Hindu Law dealt with the powers of a widow mother as manager of property of her minor son, and was in reality a case in the context of manager ship rather than guardianship properly so called. The test of the lady’s act was not who she was or in what capacity she purported to act, but whether the act was necessary or in the minor’s interest as understood by the law.

In Pandurang Dahake v. Pandurang Gorle4, there the widowed mother passed a promissory note for necessity as guardian of her two minor sons. She was a defacto manager and was held to have managerial powers, and the sons could not repudiate the debt.

In I.T Commr. v. Lakshmi Narayan5, the mother as karta of the undivided family consisting of herself and her two minor sons entered into a partnership renewing thereby the partnership which her late husband had had with his brother. The court said that at Dayabhaga law woman could be coparcener and so possibly even managers, and noted that a female might be the manager of a religious endowment. The Act of 1937 has improved the status of the Widow.

The Madras Position

In Seethabai v.. Narasimha6 there the widows claimed that they were undivided members of the coparcenery by the operation of the act of 21937. They objected to the appointment of a guardian for the property of the minors. The court appointed one widow guardian of one of the minor and a stranger was appointed the guardian of the other. None of the widows it was held that could be a manager. To be a manager one must be a pukka coparcener, a male with a birth right and not a mere statuary interest. In Radha Ammal v. I.Tcommissioner,7 Madras a mother , guardian of minor sons , purported to execute a deed of partnership admitting a stranger as a power in the ancestral business. It was held that this was outside her powers and the deed could not be registered under section 26(a) of the Income Tax Act 1922. A woman could not be a manager. The argument that Hunoomanpersaud’s case8 allowed the act of a de-facto manager to be binding even if she were a woman, was not decided, much less examined. This was a weak case in Madras decision which was in any case strictly formal and anti-Quarin in approach.

The Bombay High Court

In Rakhmabai v. Sitabai9 that a step mother as manager of a Joint Family consisting of her co-widow and minor step-son and a minor step daughter and had the power to resist the appointment of a guardian of the property of the step-son. She was the managing the estate and her authority should not, it was urged be undermined by such an appointment. The learned court said that the proper course was to appoint a guardian for the coparcenery Property. A widow could not be a manager of Joint Family Property. The case of Seethabai was agreed with.

The Orissa High Court-

In Maguni Padhano v. Lokananidhi Lingaraj10, it was held that a mother, whose husband is alive, cannot be a manager. She might indeed act as guardian of her son, if her husband was dead and perhaps as defacto guardian. But as manager she had no powers whatever. Laxmi Narayan’s case was not followed. The Principle that a woman could be a manager was decisively rejected.

The Patna High Court

In Sheogulam v. Kishun Chaudhari11, the court denied that a mother of a minor son, during the long absence of her husband , might act as karta and incur debts for family purposes. All such debts would not be binding upon the family. The case of Maguni was relied upon.

On the surface it might seem that Madras has the best of it. But a further examination makes us hesitate. The natural desire that deserted mothers and widows should have ample powers to look after their minor son’s interest, acting for necessity or the benefit of the Family, has expressed itself, as things will, in an irregular way, seeing that it was frustrated in expressing itself in some quartes in a regular way.

1. The Minor’s Manager Mare Nest
   
   
2. Some are also of the view that can a minor be a manager. It is hardly possible as the word manager means one who can make an alienation of property, one who can incur debts that will bind the family. The word is also capable of meaning the one who handles the affairs of the family. Internally, domestically, a minor may well be a manager. But he is not a manager vis-a vis the outside world.