The Supreme Court held that a dependent married daughter cannot be excluded from the definition of family solely due to marriage, ruling that she remains eligible for compassionate benefits, including employment and fair price shop allotment, if dependent on a deceased parent who died in service.
The Supreme Court has held that a dependent married daughter cannot be excluded from the definition of “family” merely because of her marital status. The Court ruled that such daughters are entitled to be considered for compassionate benefits, including employment and allotment of fair price shops, if they were dependent on a parent who died while in service.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, which struck down a provision in a Uttar Pradesh government policy governing the allotment of Public Distribution System (PDS) ration shops on compassionate grounds.
The dispute arose from a provision in a government order issued by the Uttar Pradesh government concerning the allotment of fair price shops to family members of deceased license holders under the dependent quota.
ALSO READ: Married Daughter Also Entitled to Ex-Gratia After Father’s Death: MP High Court
Under the policy, the definition of “family” included unmarried daughters, widowed daughters, and legally separated daughters. However, married daughters were excluded from consideration, regardless of whether they remained financially dependent on their parents.
The exclusion was challenged before the courts on the ground that it discriminated against women solely based on marital status and violated the constitutional guarantee of equality.
Findings of the Supreme Court
While examining the validity of the provision, the Supreme Court held that the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of family was arbitrary and constitutionally unsustainable.
The Bench observed,
“Exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of ‘family’ cannot be sustained,”
The Court noted that the objective behind compassionate appointments and allotment of ration shops is to provide financial assistance to families facing hardship after the death of a breadwinner. Whether a person is married or unmarried has no direct connection with the question of financial dependence. Writing the judgment, Justice Alok Aradhe emphasized that marital status cannot be treated as a determining factor for dependency.
The Court observed that the purpose of compassionate schemes is to alleviate economic distress suffered by a family following the loss of a parent or earning member. Therefore, the relevant consideration should be actual dependency rather than assumptions based on marriage.
Rejecting the notion that a daughter automatically ceases to belong to her parental family after marriage, the Court highlighted changing social realities and evolving family structures.
The Bench observed that marriage neither extinguishes the emotional nor economic relationship between a daughter and her parents.
The Court noted,
“Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support or remain dependent upon their parents,”
The judges further questioned the rationale behind excluding married daughters when married sons continued to be treated as members of the family without any similar restrictions. The Court pointed out that the policy created an unjustifiable distinction based solely on gender and marital status.
The Supreme Court strongly criticized the assumptions underlying the government policy, observing that they were rooted in outdated gender stereotypes.
The bench said,
“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. Such a presumption is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality and perpetuates historical notions of gender inequality which the Constitution seeks to eradicate,”
The Court emphasized that constitutional rights cannot be denied on the basis of social assumptions that no longer reflect contemporary realities. It noted that many married daughters continue to provide financial support to their parents, while in other cases they remain dependent upon them. Therefore, a blanket exclusion based solely on marriage ignores actual circumstances and discriminates against women.
The Bench further clarified that dependency cannot be presumed merely from a person’s marital status.
The Justices added,
“Equally, there may be sons who are not dependent upon the family despite being included within the definition. Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone,”
ALSO READ: Compassionate Appointment Is Final, No Second Chance for Higher Post: Supreme Court
According to the Court, the proper test should be whether the individual was genuinely dependent on the deceased parent at the relevant time, not whether the person was married. The judges observed that several married daughters continue to face economic vulnerabilities and may rely upon their parental families for financial and emotional support.
The judgment also rejected the underlying assumption that marriage automatically severs a daughter’s connection with her parental home.
It said,
“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,”
The Court accepted submissions made by amicus curiae Rukmini Bobde, who argued that dependency should be determined on a case-by-case basis and not through broad assumptions about married women. The Bench agreed that legal rights cannot be restricted on the basis of generalized presumptions that fail to account for individual circumstances.
Reaffirming the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination, the Court held that government policies must evolve in accordance with changing social realities.
The bench said,
“A blanket exclusion of all married daughters cannot be justified on … speculative assumption … Constitutional adjudication cannot be founded on presumptions that are overbroad and disconnected from lived realities,”
The judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s continued effort to dismantle discriminatory practices rooted in traditional gender roles and to ensure that women receive equal treatment under the law.
By recognizing that married daughters can continue to be dependent on their parents, the Court has expanded access to compassionate benefits and public welfare schemes that were previously denied to many women solely because of their marital status. The verdict is expected to have implications beyond ration shop allotments and may influence the interpretation of other government policies and service rules that continue to distinguish between married and unmarried daughters.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE