Marital status no ground to deny benefits of welfare scheme to daughters: Supreme Court

New Delhi: In a significant ruling promoting gender equality, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that a daughter’s marital status cannot be used as a ground to deny her the benefits of a welfare scheme if she is otherwise eligible.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed that the assumption that a married daughter ceases to be part of her parental family or loses dependency on her parents is “constitutionally impermissible.”

“Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency,” the bench said.

It noted that many married daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent on their parents in contemporary social realities.

The court allowed an appeal by Kulsum Nisha, a married daughter from Amethi in Uttar Pradesh, who was denied compassionate allotment of a fair price shop after her mother’s death solely on the ground that she was married.

Kulsum’s mother, Badrun Nisha, was allotted the fair price shop in 2013.

After Badrun Nisha’s death in March 2024, Kulsum - who had been assisting her mother in running the shop and was the sole earning member supporting her four sisters, one of whom is visually impaired — applied for the allotment.

Her application was rejected by authorities and the Allahabad High Court on the ground that a married daughter does not fall within the definition of ‘family’ under the relevant government order.

Setting aside the High Court order, the court declared the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of “family” for compassionate allotment of fair price shops as unconstitutional.

It said such exclusion was based on gender stereotypes and lacked any rational nexus with the objective of the scheme.

The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for women’s access to welfare schemes across the country, reinforcing that benefits cannot be denied on the basis of regressive gender-based assumptions

The bench emphasised that dependency should be determined as a question of fact and not presumed based on marital status alone. It pointed out that even some sons may not be dependent on the family, while many married daughters continue to support their parents.

“The object of allotment under the dependent quota is to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased dealer facing financial hardship. 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,” the court observed.

The bench added that the presumption that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes part of another family and severs ties with her natal family perpetuates outdated notions of gender inequality that the Constitution seeks to eradicate.

The court also rejected the argument that married daughters may not fulfil the local residence requirement, stating that residence is an independent eligibility criterion to be examined on facts of each case and cannot justify a blanket exclusion.

Referring to Clause 2(p) of the Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, the bench ruled that the expression “daughter” must be read to include a married daughter, provided she establishes dependency on the deceased dealer and meets all other eligibility conditions, including local residence.

The court directed the competent authority to issue the allotment order in favour of Kulsum Nisha within four weeks.

It agreed with progressive views taken by the Allahabad, Bombay, Karnataka, and Calcutta High Courts on the issue and overruled contrary decisions.