In a significant ruling concerning gender equality and welfare entitlements, the Supreme Court examined whether a married daughter can be denied consideration for allotment of a fair price shop under the dependent quota solely because of her marital status. The case raised important constitutional questions regarding discrimination, dependency, and the rights of married daughters under welfare schemes.
Brief Facts :
The Appellant's mother was allotted a fair price shop in Village Aariyawan, District Amethi, Uttar Pradesh, in 2012. Following her mother's death on 4 March 2024, the Appellant applied for allotment of the shop under the dependent quota, claiming that she was the sole earning member responsible for maintaining her four sisters, including one who was visually impaired. Although she was married, the appellant continued to reside with her mother and sisters and assisted in running the fair price shop.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected her application on the ground that a married daughter was excluded from the definition of “family” under the applicable Government Order. The Deputy Commissioner affirmed the decision, and the High Court also dismissed her writ petition, holding that it was bound by earlier precedents denying such benefit to married daughters. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Appellant :
The counsel for the Appellant contended that excluding a married daughter from the benefit of allotment under the dependent quota was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. It was argued that marital status has no rational connection with the object of a welfare scheme intended to provide financial relief to the family of a deceased dealer. The Appellant submitted that a woman does not cease to be dependent upon or connected with her parental family merely because she is married. It was further argued that different High Courts had expressed conflicting views on the eligibility of married daughters under welfare schemes and that an authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court was necessary to ensure uniformity and protection of fundamental rights. Reliance was placed on various decisions of the Calcutta and Karnataka High Courts supporting the inclusion of married daughters in such schemes.
Contentions of the State :
The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the challenge based on Articles 14, 15, and 19(1)(g) was misconceived. It submitted that the distinction between unmarried daughters, judicially separated daughters, widowed daughters, and married daughters constituted a reasonable classification. According to the State, a married daughter generally shifts to her matrimonial home and therefore may not satisfy the requirement of being a local resident, which was one of the eligibility conditions under the Government Order. The State further contended that the principle of equality requires equal treatment only among similarly situated persons. Since married daughters and other categories of daughters were not similarly situated, differential treatment was constitutionally permissible. Reliance was placed on several decisions of the Supreme Court to support the validity of the classification.
Observation of the Court :
The Court observed that the object of allotment under the dependent quota is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased fair price shop dealer and to ensure continuity in the public distribution system. The Court held that marital status has no rational connection with dependency, financial need, residence, or the ability to run a fair price shop.
The Court made the following significant observations that “Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency.” and “Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone.”
The Court further noted that while a married son continues to be treated as a member of the family irrespective of his marital status, a married daughter was excluded solely because she was married. Such a distinction, according to the Court, was based on a gender stereotype that a daughter loses her connection with her natal family after marriage, a presumption incompatible with constitutional guarantees of equality.
The Court held that “The exclusion is founded solely upon marital status and gender stereotypes and consequently, violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India.”
Applying the doctrine of purposive construction, the Court ruled that the expression “daughters” in the relevant provisions must be interpreted to include married daughters who establish dependency and satisfy other eligibility conditions.
Decision of the Court :
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration under the dependent quota solely on the ground of her marital status. The Court set aside the orders of the High Court and other authorities and directed issuance of the fair price shop allotment in favour of the Appellant within four weeks.
Case Title: Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 7667 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Anand Verma, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. S.R. Singh, Senior Advocate
Amicus Curiae: Ms. Rukhmini Bobde
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :