There is a long-standing assumption in the Indian society that a married daughter belongs to her husband's family. This patriarchal belief leads to severance of emotional and economic ties with her natal family upon marriage. Women face these unfair beliefs even when they continue to discharge obligations towards their natal family. Many married women in rural and urban areas continue to support their parents, share resources and even head households. The presumption that she now 'resides elsewhere' is divorced from the ground realities. Such stereotypes have led to many discriminatory laws and policies. But the Supreme Court's verdict in Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P & Ors.[1] on June 2, 2026 provided a decisive shift in this regard where the Court allowed the married daughter to inherit maternal family benefits. This marks another step by the Court in the journey to dismantle archaic social stereotypes.
Case Background:
It all started when the appellant's mother passed away in 2024, leaving behind a fair price shop in a village in the Amethi district of Uttar Pradesh. Even though the appellant was married, she still continued to reside with her mother and supported her in managing the shop. The appellant became the sole earning member of the household after her mother died. She managed the shop and the household consisting of four sisters, one of whom is visually impaired.
The appellant was denied compassionate allotment of the shop because married women are not considered dependents after death of the fair shop dealer. The Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, read with a Government Order no. 6 of 2019 by the state government defined 'family' in a manner that excluded a married daughter from getting allotment of fair price shop under the dependent quota. After getting rejections from multiple forums, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court. The High Court ruled against the appellant's petition citing previous judgments in Smt. Kusumlata v. State Of U.P & Ors.[2] and Saida Begum v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies, Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Ors.[3] but the legal complexity of the matter prompted the High Court to grant a certificate under Article 134A of the Constitution to allow the judgment to be challenged in the Supreme Court.
Why This Case is About Something Bigger Than a Fair Price Shop:
The appeal before the Supreme Court was not just about a fair price shop. It was for an issue that runs even deeper. The case compelled the Court to deal with a basic question: Who is a family under the law? Can the State assume that a daughter stops belonging to her natal family just because she gets married? Welfare schemes may appear administratively unbiased but the definitions used often contain preconceived notions about gender roles. The exclusion challenged in the present case was framed as an eligibility requirement but it rested on a broader assumption that the chief identity of a married woman was linked to her marital household. The judgment goes beyond and into the larger constitutional question of gender equality and the definition of family.
The Judgment, Reasoning And Impact:
The bench consisting of Justice P.S Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe overruled Allahabad High Court's judgment citing that the exclusion of married daughters from the compassionate appointment scheme is unconstitutional and against the constitutional principles. The eligibility criteria for the appointment under the G.O no.6 of 2019, when put to test under the 'intelligible differentia' under Article 14 of the Constitution, had no intelligent reason to exclude married daughters and the criteria did not conform with the objectives of the scheme.
The Court clearly stated that marriage does not sever the bond a daughter has with her family. Many daughters still provide for and support their natal families after marriage. The criteria include sons irrespective of their marital status but exclude daughters based on their marital status. This creates a gender-based discrimination that is against the constitutional values of equality. Along with Article 14, it also violates Articles 15, 16,19(1)(g) and 21. The Court held the criteria as arbitrary and unconstitutional. This reasoning is in line with the recent equality jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. The Court has repeatedly held in decisions such as Joseph Shine v. Union of India[4] and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[5] that constitutional rights cannot be curtailed on the basis of outdated social assumptions. The present case keeps that principle alive by acknowledging that marriage can never become a constitutional disability for women.
The Court looked into various judgments of the High Courts of Bombay (Ranjana Muralidhar Anerao v. State of Maharashtra[6]), Karnataka (Bhuvaneshwari v. State of Karnataka, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms & Ors [7]) and Calcutta (State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Purnima Das & Ors[8]) wherein married women were given access to welfare measures irrespective of their marital status.
The Court used the doctrine of purposive construction to include married daughters in clause 2(p) of the 2016 order which enumerates 'unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters' as included in the dependent quota. The reasoning is that the list is illustrative and not exhaustive as there is no explicit mention for exclusion of married ones. The question as regards to dependency is to be ascertained on case-to-case basis as it is a question of fact and thus should not put a blanket exclusion on the group of married women. This is perhaps the most commendable element of the judgment. The Court refused to use marital status as a proxy for dependency which emphasizes that dependency is a factual inquiry. A married daughter may continue to depend on her parents or may make a substantial contribution to the welfare of the family. On the other hand, a son might be barely or not at all linked with the family, but still be formally part of it. The Court rejected the notion that dependency could be conclusively determined on the basis of marital status alone. The significance of this shift is that it substitutes presumptions with evidence. It guarantees that welfare measures reach those who really need the support and not those based on stereotypes about gender and family structure. The main purpose of the measure is to provide immediate financial support to the dependent who has suffered loss and not to ascertain inheritance. Thus, all the benefits to be allotted should be assessed on dependency and not gender.
Women who are explicitly denied benefits due to their marital status can proactively seek redress. The judgment is a testament of the commitment of judiciary towards social justice which forms the base of our democratic polity and upholds Article 39 of the Constitution that asks the State to ensure equal rights to livelihood to men and women alike. This will eventually help in strengthening women's position in the households and act as a good renumeration for the care economy which is still unremunerated at an unprecedented scale.
In a country where women are still denied basic dignity and rights, this judgment has expanded women's rights and paves the way for more inclusive policies. It will guide policymakers and urges them to amend the existing ones that exclude married daughters as they are still family.
It is not only the permission that was given to a woman in Uttar Pradesh that makes this judgment important. What lasts is that it makes the law conform to a social reality that has long been disregarded by legal rules. Daughters continue to care for aging parents, support siblings, run family business and carry duties long after marriage. Marriage creates new bonds but does not erase old ones. However, legal systems have frequently assumed that marriage terminates women's connection with their family of origin. The Supreme Court has now decisively rejected this assumption as they are still family.
Author is a 5th year Law student at Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur. Views are personal.