In relation to the constitutionality of legislation, particularly Section 6 of the HMG Act, it is important to recognize that the validity of legislation is presumed. Courts should prioritize retaining legislation in the statute book rather than scrapping it.
 
 Only in cases of significant constitutional violations should courts declare an enactment invalid. The term 'Guardian' and its meaning, as defined under Section 4(b) of the Act, should not be seen as restrictive. Instead, it encompasses both the father and the mother. This interpretation aligns with the concept of a guardian as someone responsible for the care of a minor's person and property.
 
 Regarding Section 6(a), which acknowledges both parents as natural guardians, it is essential to interpret the expression 'after therefore' in a way that preserves the legislature's true intent. Consequently, a mother's right to act as a guardian does not cease during the father's lifetime.
 
 The statute should not be read otherwise, as it would deviate significantly from legislative intent. In summary, both the father and the mother are natural guardians according to Section 6, and neither should be given preferential rights over the other due to personality traits.