Social reality belies the notion that marriage will sever a daughter’s ties to her parents’ family, says the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court said that blanket exclusion of all married daughters cannot be justified on the speculative assumption that every married daughter necessarily resides elsewhere. File | Photo credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 2, 2026) held that marital status cannot be a ground for denying compassionate appointment to a married daughter, observing that contemporary social realities show that marriage does not sever a daughter’s ties to her parental family or necessarily end her dependence on them.

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed that the presumption that a daughter becomes a member of another family after marriage and breaks all ties with her native family is rooted in “gender-based stereotyping” and is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality.

“Marriage does not break the bond between a daughter and her parental family, nor does it provide a valid basis for the presumption of absence of dependency. Contemporary social reality shows that many married daughters continue to live with, support or remain dependent on their parents. Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be clearly determined by reference to marital status alone,” said Judge Aradhe.

The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by a woman, the married daughter of a late fair price trader, challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order rejecting her plea for compassionate appointment. After the death of her mother, who ran a fair price shop, the appellant assumed the responsibility of supporting her sisters.

She challenged a 2019 government order that excluded married daughters from the definition of “family” for the allocation of fair price trade under the dependent quota. Her application was rejected by the lower court and subsequently by the Deputy Commissioner only on the ground that, as a married daughter, she did not fall within the definition of “family” under the Ordinance.

She then appealed to the High Court, which upheld the dismissal of her claim. However, a single judge allowed her to appeal to the Supreme Court, saying the issue was of fundamental importance as it involved the rights of married daughters who were denied benefits solely because of their marital status and had led to conflicting decisions across high courts.

Justice Aradhe held that marital status had no “rational connection” with the objective of allocating the trade at a fair price under the dependent quota to provide “immediate relief” to the family of the deceased trader facing financial difficulties. He pointed out that the only factors to be considered in granting such relief are dependency, financial need, residence and ability to perform the duties of a dealership.

The bench also rejected the Uttar Pradesh government’s contention that a married daughter need not fulfill the requirement of local residence, noting that it was a “speculative assumption” that every married daughter necessarily resides elsewhere. He emphasized that constitutional decision-making cannot rest on assumptions that are too broad and divorced from “lived reality”.

“The purpose of the dependent quota is neither to create a right of succession or inheritance in the dealership nor to reward pedigree. Its purpose is limited and specific: to provide immediate financial relief to the dependent family of the deceased dealer and to ensure continuity in the public distribution system. Once dependency is accepted as the governing criterion, the exclusion of married and married daughters becomes solely because of their marital status.

The Supreme Court also noted that the government’s order did not exclude married sons from consideration, although there may be cases where they are not financially dependent on the family. The exclusion of married daughters while allowing similarly situated married sons to be considered therefore lacked any rational basis, the Bench said.

Adopting a purposive interpretation of the Government Order, the Bench held that the term “daughter” would include a married daughter who proves her dependency, meets the requirement of local residence and is otherwise fit to perform the duties of the dealership.

Accordingly, the court directed the competent authority to pass the necessary allotment order in favor of the petitioner within four weeks.

Published – 02 Jun 2026 19:20 IST