Why the Supreme Court Ruled that Marriage is No Reason to Deny a Daughter Her Welfare Benefits

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 2) ruled that a daughter's marital status cannot be used to deny her benefits under a welfare scheme if she is otherwise eligible, calling such exclusion unconstitutional and rooted in gender stereotypes.

A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said that that excluding married daughters from the definition of "family" for allotment of fair price shops under compassionate ground would be unconstitutional.

The bench 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," Deccan Herald reported.

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

The ruling came on an appeal filed by Kulsum Nisha, a married woman from Amethi, Uttar Pradesh, who had been denied compassionate allotment of her late mother's fair price shop solely on the ground of her marital status.

Kulsum's mother, Badrun Nisha, had held the shop since 2013. After her death in March 2024, Kulsum, who had been assisting in running the shop and was the sole earning member supporting four sisters, one of whom is visually impaired, applied for the allotment.

Both the district authorities and the Allahabad high court rejected her application, holding that a married daughter does not fall within the definition of "family" under the relevant government order.

The Supreme Court found the exclusion to have no rational basis and set aside the Allahabad high court order. The bench noted that many married daughters continue to live with, support, or remain financially dependent on their parents and that dependency must be determined as a question of fact rather than presumed on the basis of marital status.

It also flagged the inconsistency in applying the married status filter to daughters alone. Even some sons, the court noted, may not be dependent on their families, yet face no such bar.

"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 bench was quoted as saying by DH.

Further, the court rejected the argument that married daughters may not satisfy the local residence requirement, adding that it doesn't justify a blanket exclusion and needs to be examined on the basis of each case.

Ruling on the interpretation of Clause 2(p) of the Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, the bench held that the term "daughter" must be read to include married daughters, provided dependency on the deceased dealer is established and all other conditions, including local residence, are met.

The apex court bench has directed the authorities to issue the allotment order in Kulsum's favour within four weeks.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.