Daughter Doesn't Lose Ties With Natal Family On Marriage; Such Gender Stereotype Incompatible With Constitution : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today has said that any assumption that a married daughter ceases to be a member of the parental family is based on gender stereotypes and is constitutionally impermissible to the touchstone of equality.

The observation was made by a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe in a case where a married daughter was denied compassionate appointment on the death of her mother by the Allahabad High on the grounds that 'married daughter' is excluded from the definition of family as per a 2019 Uttar Pradesh Government Order.

Setting aside all orders, it allowed her plea for the allotment of a fair price shop, which used to be run by her mother before her demise.

In a judgment authored by Justice Aradhe, he said that marriage doesn't extinguish the bond between a daughter and her family, and it shouldn't be assumed that she is no longer dependent upon the family.

"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. "

The judgment recognises that dependency is not a matter of gender but is a question of fact and therefore can't be conclusively determined by marital status alone.

Adding to this, the Court said there may be situations where the son is not dependent upon the family despite being included within the definition. But that exclusion doesn't extend to a married son as it does to a married daughter.

"Significantly, the scheme does not exclude a married son from consideration. A son continues to remain within the fold of the 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."

Further, the Court countered the argument by the State that for eligibility of appointment, the person must be a local resident, and a married daughter may not fulfil this requirement. It said that this is again based on a speculative assumption that every married daughter necessarily resides elsewhere.

It reasoned that this is a matter of fact and can be determined on a case-by-case basis, but a blanket exclusion of all married daughters violates the fundamental right to equality.

"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."