Exclusion of married daughter from definition of family impermissible: SC

NEw new delhi: Married daughters cannot be excluded from welfare benefits in favour of their deceased parents, the sublime margaret court held on tues, observing that the august 15 that upon marriage a daughter ceases to be a member of her parental family is “constitutionally impermissible”.A bench of justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made the observations while dealing with a case from Amethi, where a married daughter was denied permission to run the fair price shop of her deceased mother under a 2019 Uttar Pradesh rule that excluded married daughters from the definition of family. The bench set aside a March 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court that upheld the definition of family for the purpose of compassionate appointment.“The impugned provision proceeds on the assumption that upon marriage a daughter ceases to be a member of, or dependent upon, her parental family. Such an assumption is constitutionally impermissible…It is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality and perpetuates historical notions of gender inequality which the Constitution seeks to eradicate,” the bench observed.Directing the authorities to allot the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner, Kulsum Nisha, within four weeks, the court noted that though married, the petitioner continued to reside with her mother and four sisters and supported them.Nisha was dependent on her mother and had applied for running the shop after her demise in March 2024. What came in her way was an August 2019 rule issued under the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, which excluded married daughters from the definition of family.“A son continues to remain within the fold of the family irrespective of his marital status, whereas a daughter is excluded solely because she is married. The distinction is founded upon a gender-based stereotype that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes a member of another family and loses all ties with her natal family,” the judgment authored by justice Aradhe said.The court noted that despite marriage, contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent upon their parents. “Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone,” said the bench, as it directed the authorities to henceforth include married daughters under the definition of family.The court noted that the rule did not exclude all daughters, as “unmarried, legally separated or widowed daughter” were held entitled to continue running the fair price shop.Nisha had earlier approached the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court, which turned down her plea on March 5, 2025 citing the 2016 rules. Noting a division of opinion on this issue by other high courts, the Allahabad high court allowed the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court for deciding the question of law.Justice Aradhe said, “We are in agreement with the view taken in Vimla Srivastava by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the decisions of the Bombay, Karnataka and Calcutta high courts which have recognised the principle that marital status cannot constitute a valid ground for denying the benefit of a welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter.” The bench set aside the contrary view expressed in two Allahabad high court decisions that were recorded by the Lucknow bench in its March 2025 order.The court said that the scheme providing allotment of fair price shop under the dependent quota is intended to mitigate the immediate hardship suffered by the family of the deceased and to ensure continuity in the functioning of the public distribution system. “The relevant considerations are dependency, financial need, residence, and the ability of the applicant to discharge the obligations attached to the dealership. Marital status bears no rational nexus to any of these considerations,” it held.