Can Married Daughters Be Denied Welfare Benefits? Supreme Court Says Marital Status No Ground for Exclusion

The Supreme Court recently held that marital status cannot be a valid ground for denying the benefit of a welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter.

A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said the assumption that a daughter ceases to be a member of, or dependent upon, her parental family after marriage 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. Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent upon their parents," the Bench said.

Court added that dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by marital status alone. It noted that while many married daughters may continue to depend on or support their parental families, there may also be sons who are not dependent on the family despite falling within the definition of "family".

In an appeal filed by Kulsum Nisha, Court held that excluding married daughters from the definition of "family" for compassionate allotment of fair price shops is unconstitutional as it is based on gender stereotypes and has no rational connection with the object of the scheme.

The Bench said the expression "daughter" in Clause 2(p) of the Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 must be read to include a married daughter, provided she establishes dependency on the deceased dealer and fulfils all other eligibility conditions, including local residence.

Why Did the Court Interfere in Kulsum Nisha's Case?

The case arose from the rejection of Kulsum Nisha's claim for compassionate allotment of a fair price shop after the death of her mother, who had been running the shop in a village in Amethi since 2013.

Her mother passed away on March 4, 2024, leaving the appellant as the sole earning member responsible for four sisters, one of whom is visually impaired. The Court noted that even after marriage, the appellant continued to live with and support her family.

However, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected her application on July 16, 2024 solely because she was a married daughter and therefore not covered under the definition of "family" in the Government Order. The Deputy Commissioner upheld that decision on January 7, 2025, and the Allahabad High Court later dismissed her writ petition.

The Supreme Court has now set aside the March 5, 2025 judgment of the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench.

Why Did the Supreme Court Hold the Exclusion of Married Daughters Unconstitutional?

Court said the purpose of compassionate allotment under the dependent quota is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased fair price shop dealer and to ensure continuity in the public distribution system.

"Fair price shop dealers perform an important public function in furtherance of this constitutional objective. The scheme providing allotment under the dependent quota upon the death of a dealer is intended to mitigate the immediate hardship suffered by the family of the deceased dealer and to ensure continuity in the functioning of the public distribution system," the Bench observed.

According to Court, the relevant factors for such allotment are dependency, financial need, residence and the applicant's ability to run the dealership. Marital status has no rational connection with any of these considerations.

"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 said.

Court held that the exclusion was based on the stereotype that a daughter, after marriage, becomes part of another family and loses 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 Bench said.

What Did the Court Say About Dependency and Residence?

The Bench stressed that dependency is a factual issue that must be examined on a case-by-case basis.

It also rejected the State's argument that married daughters may not satisfy the requirement of local residence.

"Residence constitutes an independent eligibility criterion under Paragraph IV(5) of the G.O. Whether an applicant satisfies that requirement must be determined on the facts of each case. A blanket exclusion of all married daughters cannot be justified on the speculative assumption that every married daughter necessarily resides elsewhere. Constitutional adjudication cannot be founded on presumptions that are overbroad and disconnected from lived realities," Court said.

The bench further observed that Article 14 is violated not only by unreasonable classifications but also by state actions founded on arbitrariness, irrationality and impermissible stereotypes.

It therefore held that excluding married daughters from the definition of "family" fails the test of reasonable classification and is manifestly arbitrary.

"The distinction created by Paragraph IV(10) of the GO lacks any intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the scheme. The exclusion is founded solely upon marital status and gender stereotypes and consequently, violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution," the Bench held.

What Did the Parties Argue?

Appearing for the appellant, counsel argued that excluding married daughters from the beneficial allotment scheme violated Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and lacked any intelligible differentia or rational nexus with the purpose of the scheme. It was contended that a woman's marital status has no constitutional relevance to her eligibility for a welfare benefit.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the classification between unmarried daughters, judicially separated daughters and married daughters was reasonable and did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination.

Amicus curiae Rukhmini Bobde submitted that marital status is an irrelevant consideration and that dependency is a question of fact which every applicant must independently establish. She also pointed out that different high courts had taken divergent views on the entitlement of married daughters under welfare schemes.

What Relief Did the Supreme Court Grant?

Court agreed with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Vimla Srivastava and with decisions of the Bombay, Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts recognising that marital status cannot be a valid ground for denying welfare benefits to an otherwise eligible daughter.

At the same time, it overruled the contrary views expressed in Saida Begum and Smt. Kusumlata.

Holding that the term "daughter" under the 2016 Order includes married daughters who establish dependency and fulfil other eligibility conditions, Court directed the competent authority to issue the necessary allotment order in favour of Kulsum Nisha within four weeks.

Case Title: Kulsum Nisha Vs State of UP & Ors

Bench: P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

Date of Judgement: June 2, 2026