Gulte Movie News And Politics
Reiterating that the law upholds gender equality, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said that a daughter doesn’t lose her ties with the family after marriage. The apex court affirmed that a married daughter cannot be denied the benefit of welfare schemes solely on the ground of her marital status.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said exclusion of daughters from welfare measures is based on constitutionally impermissible gender stereotypes and violates the guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The bench said beneficiaries of welfare schemes are selected basing on dependency, financial need and eligibility but not on the grounds of marriage, even for a woman.
“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,” the Court said.
The ruling was delivered in connection with an appeal filed by one Kulsum Nisha, who challenged the denial of compassionate allotment of a fair price shop after the death of her mother, a FP shop dealer in Uttar Pradesh.
While a married son continues to be considered as a part of the family irrespective of his marital status, daughters were being excluded solely due to marital status. This presumption is incompatible with the Constitutional guarantee of equality, the bench observed.
Nisha’s mother expired in March 2024 and then Nisha applied for allotment of the shop under the dependent quota, arguing that she continued to live with her mother and sisters even after the marriage and assisted her mother in operating the shop. She also mentioned that she supported the family, including a visually impaired sister.
Her application was rejected by the sub-divisional magistrate on the grounds of her marriage, which makes her not to be considered as part of a family under a state government order, regulating appointment of FPS dealers. The Deputy Commissioner upheld the decision and the Allahabad High Court dismissed her challenge, even when pointing out that the issue raised a vital question over the rights of married daughters.
Then Nisha approached the apex court.
In the court, Nisha’s counsel argued that exclusion of married daughters from beneficial schemes lacked rational basis and violated constitutional guarantees of equality. The state government said that married daughters usually move to their in-laws house and could not fulfill the rule of local residence, necessary to operate the FP shops.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument and said residence is a separate eligibility condition that must be assessed on the facts of each case.
The Bench held that relevant provisions of the UP Essential Commodities Order, 2016 must be interpreted to include married daughters who can establish dependency and satisfy other eligibility conditions.
The court also pointed out that the authorities which have been denying her the allocation had themselves not disputed Nisha’s claim that she continued living in the village, helped her mother run the shop and supported her sisters after her mother’s death.
Tags Supreme Court
