Right of Married Daughters After Marriage ? వివాహం అయిన కుమార్తెల హక్కులు

Right of Married Daughters After Marriage – Supreme Court Judgment | Andhra Pradesh Annamayya District, Madanapalle వివాహం అయిన కుమార్తెల హక్కులు – సుప్రీం కోర్టు తీర్పు | ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్ అన్నమయ్య జిల్లా, మదనపల్లె

Questions for Women Readers

If you are married, should your rights in your parents’ family end?
Why should dependency be judged only by facts, not by marriage?
Can a daughter living in Madanapalle or Annamayya District claim welfare benefits if she supports her parents?
Should society still believe that only sons are true dependents?
మహిళల కోసం ప్రశ్నలు
వివాహం అయిన తర్వాత మీ హక్కులు తల్లిదండ్రుల కుటుంబంలో ముగియాలా?
కేవలం వివాహం కారణంగా ఆధారపడటం లేకపోయిందని చెప్పడం సరైనదా?
మీరు మదనపల్లె లేదా అన్నమయ్య జిల్లాలో ఉంటూ తల్లిదండ్రులను ఆదుకుంటే, సంక్షేమ ప్రయోజనాలు పొందే హక్కు ఉండకూడదా?
కుమార్తెలు కూడా తల్లిదండ్రులపై ఆధారపడతారని సమాజం అంగీకరించకూడదా?
ఎందుకు ఇప్పటికీ కొందరు “కుమారుడు మాత్రమే నిజమైన వారసుడు” అని నమ్ముతున్నారు?

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has recently ruled that marital status cannot determine dependency. Excluding married daughters from welfare benefits such as compassionate allotment of fair price shops violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. This landmark judgment is highly relevant for families in Annamayya District and Madanapalle, where questions of daughters’ rights after marriage often arise.

భారత సుప్రీం కోర్టు ఇటీవల ఇచ్చిన తీర్పులో, వివాహ స్థితి ఆధారంగా ఆధారపడటం నిర్ణయించలేము అని స్పష్టం చేసింది. వివాహం అయిన కుమార్తెలను సంక్షేమ ప్రయోజనాల నుండి తొలగించడం ఆర్టికల్ 14 మరియు 15(1) ఉల్లంఘన అని కోర్టు పేర్కొంది. ఈ తీర్పు అన్నమయ్య జిల్లా, మదనపల్లె ప్రాంత ప్రజలకు ముఖ్యమైనది.

Key Extract from Judgment

“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.” – Supreme Court (Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha & Alok Aradhe)

Case Background

The case arose from Kulsum Nisha’s appeal after her claim for compassionate allotment of a fair price shop was rejected solely because she was a married daughter.
The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order, holding that dependency is a factual issue and cannot be conclusively determined by marital status.
The Court emphasized that excluding married daughters is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and based on gender stereotypes.

కుల్సుమ్ నిషా కేసులో, ఆమె వివాహిత కాబట్టి దరఖాస్తు తిరస్కరించబడింది. సుప్రీం కోర్టు ఆ తీర్పును రద్దు చేసింది. ఆధారపడటం వాస్తవ పరిస్థితులపై ఆధారపడి ఉంటుంది, వివాహం ఆధారంగా నిర్ణయించరాదు. వివాహిత కుమార్తెలను తొలగించడం అసంవిధానికం అని కోర్టు పేర్కొంది.

Local Relevance (Madanapalle, Annamayya District, Madanapalle)

In Madanapalle and surrounding mandals of Annamayya District, many families face disputes over daughters’ rights after marriage. This judgment clarifies that a daughter’s bond with her parental family continues even after marriage, and she cannot be excluded from welfare schemes or inheritance rights merely due to marital status.

మదనపల్లె మరియు అన్నమయ్య జిల్లా మండలాల్లో, వివాహం అయిన కుమార్తెల హక్కులపై వివాదాలు ఎక్కువగా వస్తాయి. ఈ తీర్పు ప్రకారం, కుమార్తెకు వివాహం తర్వాత కూడా తల్లిదండ్రుల కుటుంబంతో బంధం కొనసాగుతుంది, కేవలం వివాహం కారణంగా ఆమెను సంక్షేమ పథకాల నుండి లేదా వారసత్వ హక్కుల నుండి తొలగించరాదు.

Disclaimer

This blog is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice or solicitation. For case-specific guidance, please consult a qualified advocate.

ఈ బ్లాగ్ విద్యా మరియు సమాచారం కోసం మాత్రమే. ఇది న్యాయ సలహా కాదు. వ్యక్తిగత కేసుల కోసం, దయచేసి అర్హత కలిగిన న్యాయవాదిని సంప్రదించండి.

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 617
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7667 OF 2025
KULSUM NISHA
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
ALOK ARADHE, J.
… APPELLANT
VERSUS
J U D G M E N T
… RESPONDENTS

This appeal emanates from an order dated 05.03.2025 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
(hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) by which the claim of
the appellant, who is a married daughter of the deceased dealer,
for appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate
ground, has been rejected.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On 27.10.2012, a fair price shop located at village panchayat
Aariyawan, Development Block and Tehsil Tiloi, District Amethi,
was allotted to Smt. Badrun Nisha who was the mother of the
appellant.
In exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 (‘1955 Act’), the UP Government through
1
Notification dated 10.08.2016 notified the Uttar Pradesh
Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution
Control) Order, 2016 (‘2016 Order’). Clause 7(2)(i) of the 2016
Order refers to a ‘person appointed’ to run a fair price shop and
does not prescribe any eligibility criteria of marital status. The
power to identify dependents is delegated to the State
Government. The State of Uttar Pradesh issued G.O. No. 6 of
2019 on 05.08.2019 (‘G.O.’) governing the ‘identification,
reservation, and appointment of fair price shops in rural areas.
Paragraph V of G.O. describes the procedure for appointment of
fair price shop under the dependent quota, after the death of the
dealer. Paragraph IV of G.O. prescribes the essential
qualifications and conditions for selection in rural areas. Sub
Paragraph 10 of Paragraph IV, defines the expression ‘family’
which excludes ‘married daughter’.
On 04.03.2024, the mother of the appellant passed away leaving,
the appellant as the sole earning member of the household
responsible for her four sisters, one of whom is visually impaired.
The appellant even after her marriage continued to reside with
her mother and sisters. The sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi
(‘SDM’) by an order dated 05.03.2024 ordered attachment of the
2
fair price shop on the demise of the dealer, namely the mother of
the appellant. On 19.03.2024, the appellant filed an application
before the SDM seeking allotment of the shop in her capacity as a
dependent. The SDM, by an order dated 16.07.2024, rejected the
application solely on the ground that the appellant is a married
daughter and is not covered within the definition of ‘family’ as
provided in G.O. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dated
07.01.2025 affirmed the order of the SDM and dismissed the
appeal.
The appellant challenged the aforesaid orders dated 16.07.2024
and 07.01.2025 passed by the SDM and the Deputy
Commissioner respectively, in a Writ Petition. The High Court by
an order dated 05.03.2025 inter alia held that it is bound by the
Division Bench decisions of the High Court in Smt. Kusumlata1
and Saida Begum2 and held that the appellant is not entitled for
compassionate appointment, as a dealer to run the fair price
shop. The learned Single Judge however, noted the contrary view
taken by the Bombay High Court3 and observed that the question
raised is of seminal importance, as it concerns the rights of
1Special Appeal No.89 of 2022
22023:AHC-LKO:11230-DB
3Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.; 2014 (5) Mah LJ 543
3
married daughters who are adversely affected solely on the
ground of the marriage. The High Court, therefore, granted a
certificate under Article 134-A of the Constitution of India and
held that the matter involves a substantial question of law of
general importance. The writ petition was, however, dismissed. In
the aforesaid factual background, this appeal arises for our
consideration.
SUBMISSIONS
Mr. Anand Verma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that exclusion of married daughter from beneficial allotment
scheme, lacks any intelligible differentia or rational nexus with
the object of the scheme, and violates Fundamental Rights
guaranteed under Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India. It is urged that the marital status of a
woman bears no constitutional relevance to eligibility for a
welfare scheme. It is pointed out that there is conflict of opinion
amongst the High Courts with regard to the eligibility of the
married daughters for welfare schemes, which warrants an
authoritative resolution by this Court to ensure consistency and
uniformity in the application of the Fundamental Rights. In
4
support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the
decisions of the Calcutta and Karnataka High Courts4.
Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel for the State of Uttar
Pradesh, on the other hand, submitted that the plea of
discrimination involving Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution is misconceived and the classification between an
unmarried daughter, a judicially separated daughter and a
married daughter is a reasonable classification and the issue
regarding violation of Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India does not arise, as discrimination is among
the same class. It is contended that one of the essential
qualifications mentioned in sub-Paragraph 5 of Paragraph IV of
G.O. provides that an applicant must be a local resident and it
cannot be gainsaid that a married daughter is not a resident of
the village as she shifts to her in-laws house in a different village.
It is submitted that equal protection means Right to Equal
treatment in similar circumstances, both in privileges conferred
and liabilities imposed and persons who are unequally
4State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Purnima Das & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 13121; Anjana Modak v.
State of West Bengal & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 6775; Sulekha Gorain v. State of West Bengal &
Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 9354; Smt. G.V. Hemavathi v. State of Karnataka & Ors.; Writ Pet.
No.51361 pf 2019 (GM-PDS); Indira & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2024, SCC OnLine Kar 6749 and
Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik v. State of Karnataka, Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms & Ors.; 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3397
5
circumstanced cannot be treated on a par. In support of the
aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions
of this Court5.
Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the
compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of
public employment based on merit and open competition, which
is intended to provide immediate financial relief to the family of
deceased employee and is not a matter of inheritance or
automatic entitlement. It is urged that the same is granted on
humanitarian grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a
family on account of death of breadwinner of a family. It is
contended that marital status alone of an applicant is an
irrelevant consideration and would fall foul of Articles 14 to 16 of
the Constitution of India. It is urged that the dependency is a
pure question of fact which an applicant must satisfy to be
considered for appointment or allotment on compassionate
grounds. It is urged that the definition of ‘family’ as provided in
5Agnigundala Venkata Ranga Rao v. Indukuru Ramachandra Reddy (D) by LRs & Ors., (2017) 7 SCC
694; Kishan Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1955) 2 SCC 136; T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors.
v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481; Govt. of A.P. & Anr. v. Maharashi Publishers Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 95; Amita v. U.O.I. & Anr., (2005) 13 SCC 721; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Maqbool
Ahmad, (2006) 7 SCC 521; Soma Chakravarty v. State Thr. CBI, (2007) 5 SCC 403 and State of Punjab &
Anr. v. Balkaran Singh, (2006) 12 SCC 709
6
the scheme offends the object and purpose of the scheme and is
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
It is submitted that the divergent views have been taken by
various High Courts with regard to entitlement of married
daughters for beneficial schemes. It is urged that impugned
Clause excluding married daughters, deserves to be struck down
being violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution. It is
pointed out that in the instant case, the appellant has actively
assisted her mother in running the fair price shop and on her
demise has assumed the responsibility of maintaining visually
impaired sister. It is, therefore, contended that the application of
the appellant ought to be considered on its own merit by the
competent authority. In support of the aforesaid submissions,
reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court6 as well
as various High Courts7.
6State of Karnataka v. C.N. Apoorva Shree (Order dated 17.12.2021); Savita Samvedi (Ms) and Anr.
Union of India & Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 380; C.B. Muthama v. Union of India, (1979) 4 SCC 260; Director of
Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. v. V. Somyashree; (2021) 12 SCC 20; State of Maharashtra and Anr. v.
Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, 2022 SCC OnLine 1327
7Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Anr.; 2015 SCC OnLine All 6776; Kusumlata v. State of U.P. &
Ors. U.P. 2021 SCC OnLine All 826; Saida Begum (supra); Sripalli Ammulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh
& Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine AP 4718; Aparna Narendra Zambre & Anr. v. ASE Sangli and Ors., 2011 (5)
Mah LJ 290; Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao (supra); Sou. Swara Sachin Kulkarni (Kumari Deepa Ashok
Kulkarni) v. Superintending Engineer, Pune Irrigation Project Circle & Anr., 2013 SCC OnLine Bom
1549; State of West Bengal (supra); Smt. Sarojini Bhoi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2015 SCC
OnLine Chh 395; Deepa Rani Das v. State of Assam & Ors., (2017) 4 Gau LR 423; Mamta Devi v. State
of H.P. & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine HP 2125; Central Coalfields Limited v. Hemanti Devi & Ors., 2018
SCC OnLine Jhar 918; Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik (supra); Manjula v. State of Karnataka; ILR 2004 KAR
7
We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the
records.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF 2016 ORDER AND THE G.O.
Before proceeding further, it is apposite to make note of relevant
provisions of 2016 Order, and the G.O. Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order
defines ‘family’ means groups of following persons:
“· Head of the family
·
Husband/wife, including legally adopted
Children
·
·
Adult Children, who are fully dependent on the
head of the family
Unmarried, legally separated, and widowed
daughters; and
· Fully dependent mother/father of the head of
the family.”
11.1 Clause 7 of 2016 Order deals with appointment and regulation of
fair price shop. Clause 7(2) empowers the State Government to
provide essential qualifications and conditions of eligibility of a
4881; V. Somyashree v. Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr., ILR 2019 KAR 3139; Meenakshi
Dubey v. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Ors., ILR 2020 MP 647; N. Uma v. Director of
Elementary School Education, DPI Compound & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 37756; R. Govindammal
v. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department & Ors., (2015)
3 LW 756; Bhanuprava Garnaik v. State of Odisha, 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 4096; Kshirabadi Bala Behera
v. Orissa Administrative Tribunal, (2022) W.P. (C) No.14945 of 2015; Abha Kumari v. Bank of India &
Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 5529; Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 4490;
Meenakshi Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2024) 1 RLW 703; Shaheen Sultana & Anr. v. State of
Telangana & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine TS 1278; State of Tripura & Ors. v. Debashri Chakraborty, 2022
SCC OnLine Tri 58 and Udham Singh Nagar District Co-op Bank & Anr. v. Anjula Singh & Ors., AIR
2019 Utt 69
8
person entitled to run a fair price shop. Clause 7(2)(ii) mandates
a person who runs a fair price shop, to act as an agent of the
Government.
In pursuance of the 2016 Order, the State Government has
issued G.O. which provides for identification, reservation and
appointment of fair price shops in rural areas. Clause IV of the
G.O. prescribes the essential qualifications and conditions of
selection in rural areas which reads as under:
“IV Essential Qualifications & Conditions for
Selection in Rural Areas:
Applicant must have a minimum balance of
Rs.4O,OO0/- in their bank account to ensure
financial capability to lift one month’s stock at once.
Applicant must submit a character certificate issued
by the District Magistrate.
Applicant must have passed at least High School
(l0th standard) or equivalent examination.
Applicant must be at least 21 years old, and no
other family member, should be an allottee of a fair
price shop.
Applicant must be a local resident.
Applicant must deposit an earnest money of
Rs.1000/- via bank draft in favor of the District
Supply Officer. This amount will be adjusted in the
security deposit upon appointment.
Upon appointment, the applicant must deposit
Rs.10,000/- as security and submit a Rs.100/- non
judicial stamp paper. This will apply to new
9
appointees. Existing dealers will be required to
deposit security at prescribed rates.
No criminal case should be registered against the
applicant or their family member, nor should they
have been convicted in any criminal matter.
Neither the applicant nor any family member should
have been an allottee of a fair price shop previously
cancelled due to irregularities or involved in any
heinous offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955, or any criminal offence
under the Indian Penal Code.
Allotment of fair price shops shall not be made in
favor of Gram Pradhan (Village Head) or their family
members. The definition of ”family” shall be as
provided under the Uttar Pradesh Essential
Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution)
Order, 2016, which is:
·
·
·
·
Head of the family
Husband/wife, including legally adopted
Children
Children fully dependent on the head of the
family
Unmarried, legally separated, and widowed
daughters
· Parents fully dependent on the head of
the family
If any fair price dealer or their family member, as
defined above, is elected as Gram Pradhan, the
allotment of their shop; shall be cancelled. This
provision shall be effective from Government
Order
No.-276/29-6-02-162Sa()/01
18.07.2002.”
dated
Paragraph (V) of the G.O. deals with procedure for allotment of a
fair price shop under dependent quota after the death of the
dealer. Paragraph (V) of the G.O. reads as under:
10
“(V) Procedure for Appointment of Fair Price Shop under
Dependent Quota after Death of Dealer:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The dependent shall Submit an application to the Sub
Divisional Magistrate within 30 days of the dealer’s
death, along with a dependency certificate and No
Objection Certificates (NOCs) from other adult family
members.
The dependent must fulfil the eligibility conditions
prescribed under Para-IV of this Government Order.
The definition of “family” under the dependent category
shall be as per Para-IV (10) of this order.
An additional period of 15 days may be given beyond
the initial 30 days for submitting the application.
The eligibility of the dependent shall be examined by
the Tehsil Level Selection Committee, which will verify
the dependency certificate, NOCs from other family
members, and other documents.
Upon fulfilment of all conditions, the committee will
recommend allotment of the shop to the dependent.
(vii) The entire process shall be completed within two
months from the date of receipt of the application.
Clause (IV)5 requires that an applicant must be a local resident,
whereas Clause IV(10) excludes married daughter from the
definition of ‘family’.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, guarantees equality before
the law and equal protection of the laws. Article 15(1) prohibits
discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or
11
place of birth. Article 21 protects the right to live with dignity.
These guarantees must be interpreted in light of the
constitutional commitment to secure social and economic justice
embodied in the Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 39(a),
in particular, mandates that the State direct its policy towards
securing that men and women equally have the right to an
adequate means of livelihood. Article 39(c) provides that the State
shall direct its policy to ensure that operation of economic system
does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of
production to the common detriment.
The 1955 Act and 2016 Order have been framed to ensure
equitable distribution of essential commodities through 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 solitary issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is
whether exclusion of the married daughter from the definition of
12
‘family’ as defined under Clause 2(p) of the 2016 Order and as
referred to in Paragraph (IV)10 of the G.O. is constitutionally
sustainable.
A Constitution Bench of this Court8 after taking note of a
decision rendered by seven Judge Bench of this Court9 has held
that Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class legislation, but
permits reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. A
classification, however, must satisfy two conditions, firstly, it
must be founded upon an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from
others left out of the group, and secondly the differentia must
have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the
statute in question. The doctrine of equality has, over time,
evolved beyond a narrow classification test. State action, which is
arbitrary, irrational, capricious, or founded on impermissible
stereotypes is equally vulnerable to challenge under Article 1410.
Examined on the touchstone of these principles, the exclusion of
a married daughter from the definition of “family” cannot be
8Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia & Ors. vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors., 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6
9Budhan Choudhry vs. State of Bihar & Ors.; (1954) 2 SCC 791
10 Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 434;
A.P. Dairy Development Corporation Federation vs. B. Narasimha Reddy, (2011) 9 SCC 286; Shayara
Bano vs. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 1; K.S. Puttuswamy & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.,
(2017) 10 SCC 1; Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India & Anr., (2018) 11 SCC 1
13
sustained. 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 impugned provision proceeds on the assumption that upon
marriage a daughter ceases to be a member of, or dependent
upon, her parental family. Such an assumption 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. Equally, there may be sons who are not dependent upon
the family despite being included within the definition.
Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively
determined by reference to marital status alone.
Significantly, the scheme does not exclude a married son from
consideration. A son continues to remain within the fold of the
14
family irrespective of his martial status, whereas a daughter is
excluded solely because she is married. The distinction is
founded upon a gender-based stereotype that a daughter, upon
marriage, becomes a member of another family and loses all 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 submission of the State that a married daughter may not
satisfy the requirement of local residence is equally untenable.
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.
The purpose of the dependent quota is neither to create a right of
succession or inheritance in the dealership nor a reward for
lineage. The object is limited and specific: to provide immediate
15
financial relief to the dependent family of a deceased dealer and
to ensure continuity in the public distribution system. Once
dependency is accepted as the governing criterion, exclusion of a
married daughter solely on account of her marital status
becomes wholly irrational and self-defeating.
We are, therefore, of the considered view that the exclusion of
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 G.O. 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 of India.
THE DOCTRINE OF PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION
Now, we advert to the issue whether the words “unmarried,
legally separated and widowed daughters” are required to be
struck down or can be read in a manner so as to include married
daughters. The literal meaning of aforesaid words employed in
Clause 2(p) of the 2016 Order produces a result which is
incompatible with constitutional guarantees of equality and non
16
discrimination. The principle of purposive construction is based
on the understanding that the Court is supposed to attach that
meaning to a provision which serves the purpose behind it, the
basic approach being to ascertain is what the provision is
designed to accomplish. When the language of an enactment is
reasonably capable of more than one meaning, the Court is not
merely permitted but is obliged to prefer that construction which
promotes the provision and avoids a result that would be
arbitrary or unjust. The Court should adopt purposive
interpretation in cases where the literal interpretation may not
serve the purpose or may lead to absurdity11.
Bearing in mind the object of the provision, that is to provide
immediate financial relief to the dependent family of the deceased
dealer and to ensure continuity of public distribution system, on
purposive interpretation, the words “unmarried, legally separated
and widowed daughters” in Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, have to be
read so as to include married daughters provided they fulfil other
eligibility conditions laid down in G.O. for the following reasons: –
11 Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishan Lulla; (2016) 3 SCC 619
17
(i)
The words “unmarried, legally separated and
widowed daughters” illustrate the specific
categories of daughters who are expressly
included. There is no express language of
exclusion. The enumeration is a description of
class of daughters who by reason of remaining in
or returning to natal household, are most visibly
placed in position of dependency. The absence of
exclusionary language in respect of married
daughters reflects an illustrative and not
exhaustive character of enumeration;
(ii)
(iii)
The 2016 Order in Clause 2(p) itself defines one
of the categories of family members as “Adult
children who are fully dependent on the head of
the family”, without any qualification of marital
status or gender.
The object of dependent quota is unambiguously
welfare oriented, that is to provide for immediate
financial relief to dependent family member of
deceased dealer and to ensure continuity of
public distribution system. Dependency and not
18
the marital status is the governing criteria of the
G.O.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The descriptive categories of daughters in Clause
2(p) of 2016 Order whether unmarried, legally
separated or widowed share a common
characteristic that is they remain or have
returned to their natal family. They are united by
functional criteria of dependency. A married
daughter who has not departed from the natal
household and is dependent upon it, shares the
same functional characteristic.
The submission that a married daughter
necessarily fails to satisfy the local residence
requirement and therefore cannot be a
dependent, needs a factual inquiry to be made in
every case. A blanket exclusion of all married
daughters on such a speculative presumption is
unjustified and is constitutionally untenable.
To read the words “unmarried, legally separated
and widowed daughters” in Clause 2(p) of 2016
19
Order would produce a result which is
inconsistent with constitutional guarantees
under Articles 14 and 15(1) as the same would
amount to exclusion of a married daughter on a
gender-based stereotype which is constitutionally
impermissible.
(vii) The exclusion of married daughter who is
dependent upon the deceased dealer and resides
with the family and is a capable of running the
fair price shop would directly frustrate the
purpose of the provision.
To sum up, the expression “daughter” in Clause 2(p) of 2016
Order, has to be read to include a married daughter provided she
establishes the dependency on the deceased dealer and satisfies
all other eligibility conditions prescribed under the G.O. including
the requirement of local residence.
For the foregoing reasons, on a purposive construction of Clause
2(p) of 2016 Order, we hold that the expression “daughters” used
in the aforesaid provision includes a married daughter who
furnishes a dependency certificate along with No Objection
20
Certificates from other adult family members of the deceased
dealer and is a local resident and satisfies all other eligibility
conditions prescribed in the G.O. The provision, so construed,
would neither suffer from any invalidity nor any constitutional
infirmity. It is saved by the very meaning it bears when
understood in the light of its purpose.
We are in agreement with the view taken in Vimla Srivastava
(supra) by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and
the decisions of the Bombay, Karnataka and Calcutta High
Courts which have recognised the principle that marital status
cannot constitute a valid ground for denying the benefit of a
welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter. To the extent
the contrary view expressed in Saida Begum and Smt.
Kusumlata (supra), does not lay down the correct law and stand
overruled.
CONCLUSION
In the present case, the material on record establishes that the appellant continued to reside in the same village even after her marriage and actively assisted her mother in the operation of the
fair price shop. The appellant upon her mother’s demise, assumed responsibility for maintaining her sisters, including a visually impaired sister. The authorities have not disputed these factual assertions. The sole ground on which her application was rejected was that she is a married daughter. Once that ground is held to be constitutionally invalid, no impediment survives to the grant of relief in her favour.
Consequently, the orders dated 05.03.2025, 07.01.2025 and 16.07.2024 passed by the High Court, Deputy Commissioner and the SDM respectively are quashed and set aside. The competent
authority shall issue the necessary allotment order in favour of the appellant within a period of four weeks.
Before parting with the matter, we place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
NEW DELHI;
JUNE 02, 2026.
…..…….……………….………….……….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
…..…….……………….………….……….J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
22