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

A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed that the presumption that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes a member of another family and severs all ties with her natal family is rooted in a “gender-based stereotype” and is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality.

“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. Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone,” the judgment authored by Justice Aradhe said.

The top court was hearing an appeal filed by a woman, the married daughter of a deceased fair price shop dealer, challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment. Following the death of her mother, who had been running the fair price shop, the appellant assumed responsibility for supporting her sisters.

She had challenged a 2019 government order that excluded married daughters from the definition of “family” for allotment of a fair price shop under the dependent quota. Her application was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and subsequently by the Deputy Commissioner solely on the ground that, as a married daughter, she did not fall within the definition of “family” under the order.

She, thereafter, approached the High Court, which upheld the rejection of her claim. However, the single judge granted her leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, observing that the issue was of seminal importance as it concerned the rights of married daughters who were denied benefits solely on account of their marital status and had given rise to conflicting decisions across High Courts.

Justice Aradhe reasoned that marital status bears no “rational nexus” to the object of allotting a fair price shop under the dependent quota, which is intended to provide “immediate succour” to the family of a deceased dealer facing financial hardship. He pointed out that the only considerations to be looked at while granting such relief are dependency, financial need, residence, and the ability to discharge the responsibilities attached to the dealership.

The Bench also rejected the Uttar Pradesh government’s contention that a married daughter may not satisfy the requirement of local residence, observing that it is a “speculative assumption” that every married daughter necessarily resides elsewhere. It underscored that constitutional adjudication cannot rest on presumptions that are overbroad and divorced from “lived realities”.

“The purpose of the dependent quota is neither to create a right of succession or inheritance in the dealership nor to reward lineage. Its object is limited and specific: to provide immediate 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,” the Bench said.

The top court also noted that the government order did not exclude married sons from consideration, even though there may be instances where they are not financially dependent on the family. The exclusion of married daughters, while permitting 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 expression “daughter” would include a married daughter who furnishes proof of dependency, satisfies the requirement of local residence, and is otherwise eligible to discharge the responsibilities attached to the dealership.

Accordingly, the court directed the competent authority to issue the necessary allotment order in favour of the appellant within four weeks.