The application however was sent back to the petitioner by the RBI Authority advising her to produce the application signed by the father and in the alternative the Bank informed that a certificate of guardianship from a Competent Authority in her favour, ought to be forwarded to the Bank forthwith so as to enable the Bank to issue Bonds as requested and it is this companymunication from the RBI authorities, which is stated to be arbitrary and opposed to the basic companycept of justice in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of section 6 of the Act as indicated above.
In December, 1984 the petitioner applied to the Reserve Bank of India for 9 Relief Bond to be held in the name of their minor son Rishab alongwith an intimation that the petitioner No.1 being the mother, would act as the natural guardian for the purposes of investments.
The factual backdrop in WP c No.1016 of 1991 centres round a prayer for custody of the minor son born through the lawful wedlock between the petitioner and the first respondent.
