Marriage Does Not End a Daughter’s Bond: Supreme Court Says Married Daughters Can Get Parent’s Ration Shop

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has held that excluding married daughters from the definition of “family” for allotment of a fair price shop after the dealer's death is based on marital status and gender stereotypes and violates Articles 14 and 15(1). Reading the definition purposively, it held that a married daughter who proves dependency can be considered, and directed allotment of the shop to the appellant within four weeks.

A fair price shop in village Aariyawan (Tiloi, Amethi) was allotted to the appellant's mother in 2012. She died on 4 March 2024. The appellant, a married daughter and the sole earning member supporting four sisters, one of whom is visually impaired, applied for allotment as a dependent on 19 March 2024.

The SDM, Tiloi rejected the application on 16 July 2024 solely because a married daughter was outside the definition of “family” in the Government Order of 2019, and the Deputy Commissioner agreed. The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow) dismissed her writ petition on 5 March 2025, following earlier Division Bench decisions, but certified the case under Article 134-A as raising a question of general importance.

The Key Question Before the Court

Is it constitutional to exclude married daughters, but not married sons, from the family members who can take over a deceased dealer's fair price shop?

Marital Status Has No Rational Nexus

Applying the reasonable classification test from Ram Krishna Dalmia, (1958) 03 SC CK 0001 and Budhan Choudhry, (1954) 12 SC CK 0011, the Court found that marital status had no rational connection with the scheme's purposes of dependency, need, residence and capacity to run the shop. It noted that married sons are not excluded, making the distinction gender-based, and held that “The exclusion is founded solely upon marital status and gender stereotypes”. It added that “Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family”.

The State's argument that married daughters do not meet the local residence condition was rejected; residence must be decided on facts in each case. Reading the listed categories as illustrative, the Court held that the definition “includes a married daughter who furnishes a dependency certificate” and meets the other conditions. It agreed with Vimla Srivastava, (2015) 12 AHC CK 0041 and decisions of the Bombay, Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts, and overruled Saida Begum and Smt. Kusumlata, (2021) 11 AHC CK 0043 to that extent.

What the Court Actually Held

• Excluding married daughters from “family” for fair price shop allotment violates Articles 14 and 15(1).
• A married daughter who proves dependency and satisfies the other conditions is eligible.
• The orders of the SDM, the Deputy Commissioner and the High Court were set aside.
• The competent authority must issue the allotment order in the appellant's favour within four weeks.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It removes a gender-based bar in a widely used welfare scheme in Uttar Pradesh.
• It treats dependency as a question of fact, not of marital status.
• Its reasoning may be invoked against similar exclusions elsewhere.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Applicants

• Furnish a dependency certificate and proof of meeting the residence and other conditions.
• Rely on the ruling that marital status alone cannot disqualify a daughter.

For Authorities

• Decide residence and dependency on facts, not by presumption.
• Do not reject applications only because the daughter is married.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. She must prove dependency and meet the other conditions such as residence and capacity.

Clause 2(p) of the UP Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 and the Government Order of 5 August 2019.

The Court directed that the shop be allotted to her within four weeks.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →