The Supreme Court ruled that the view of a married daughter not being a member of her parents’ family was based on gender-based conservative concepts and could never be accepted under the constitutional principle of equality. The Allahabad High Court had refused to grant compassionate placement to a married daughter after her mother’s death on the basis of a 2019 Uttar Pradesh government directive that excluded ‘married daughter’ from the definition of family. Hearing the case Supreme Court Justice P.K. A bench of Justice Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradh made historical observations.
Setting aside all the orders of the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court in Kulsum Nisha v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (Civil Appeal No. 7667/2025) allowed the petitioner’s plea for allotment of the affordable shop (ration shop) run by her mother before her death. In this judgement, Justice Aradhe clearly stated that marriage never ends the relationship between a daughter and her family of birth and therefore it is completely wrong to assume that a married daughter is not dependent on her parents.
The apex court bench noted that the controversial directive of the Uttar Pradesh government was based on the premise that a girl child does not remain a member or dependent of her parents’ family after marriage, which is constitutionally unacceptable. In today’s society, there are many married daughters who live with, help or depend on their parents. The Court made it clear that dependency is not a gender issue, but a factual aspect, which cannot be determined solely on the basis of marital status.
The court pointed out that the government scheme does not exclude married sons from the definition of family. A son remains part of the family even if married, but excluding a daughter simply because she is married reflects an archaic conservative mindset based on gender. The court held that a daughter after marriage severed all ties with her place of birth and became a member of another family violating her constitutional right to equality.
The court also rejected the argument advanced by the state government that the candidate has to be a local resident to qualify for recruitment and a married daughter cannot fulfill this requirement. The bench said that the notion that every married daughter resides elsewhere after marriage is baseless. The Supreme Court declared such discrimination totally unconstitutional, saying that the simultaneous exclusion of all married daughters from such schemes violated the fundamental right to equality under Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India.