Latest JudgementConstitution of India

Kulsum Nisha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026

A married daughter cannot be excluded from benefits available to family members merely on the basis of marriage.

Supreme Court of India·3 June 2026

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

3 June 2026

Judges

Justice P.S. Narasimha & Justice Alok Aradhe

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Article 14 of the Constitution of India Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India

Facts of the Case

he appellant was a married daughter whose mother operated a fair price shop.
After the death of her mother, the appellant sought allotment of the fair price shop in her favour.
Her claim was rejected on the basis of a 2019 Uttar Pradesh Government Order.
The Government Order excluded a married daughter from the definition of "family".
The authorities consequently denied her eligibility for allotment.
The matter eventually reached the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the exclusion.
The appellant challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.
The State argued that married daughters generally reside elsewhere and may not satisfy local residence requirements.
The appellant contended that exclusion solely based on marriage amounted to gender discrimination and violated constitutional guarantees of equality.

Whether a married daughter can be excluded from the definition of “family” solely on the basis of her marital status?
Whether exclusion of married daughters while including married sons violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India?
Whether marriage automatically severs a daughter's relationship or dependency upon her parental family?
Whether marital status can be treated as a conclusive factor for determining dependency upon the parental family?
Whether the 2019 Uttar Pradesh Government Order creates a constitutionally valid classification?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the authorities as well as the Allahabad High Court.
The Court held that the exclusion of married daughters was founded upon gender stereotypes.
It observed that the Government Order presumed that a daughter ceases to be a member of her parental family after marriage.
The Court held that such a presumption is constitutionally impermissible.
It emphasized that marriage does not extinguish the bond between a daughter and her parental family.
The Bench observed that many married daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent upon their parents.
The Court held that dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by marital status.
It noted that while a married son remains within the definition of family, a married daughter is excluded solely because of her gender and marital status.
The Court held that such differential treatment perpetuates historical gender discrimination.
It rejected the State's argument that married daughters may not be local residents, observing that residence is a factual issue to be determined individually.
The Court concluded that a blanket exclusion of all married daughters lacks a rational basis.

A married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration solely because she is married.
Marriage does not terminate a daughter's relationship with her parental family.
Dependency cannot be presumed or denied solely on the basis of marital status.
The exclusion of married daughters from the definition of family violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution.
The relevant provision of the Government Order was held to be manifestly arbitrary.
The appellant was held entitled to consideration for allotment of the fair price shop.

The judgment is a significant step toward eliminating gender-based stereotypes in administrative policies.
The Court recognized that traditional assumptions regarding a daughter's role after marriage no longer reflect contemporary social realities.
By treating dependency as a factual inquiry rather than a legal presumption, the Court strengthened substantive equality.
The ruling reinforces the constitutional principle that benefits cannot be denied solely on the basis of sex or marital status.
The judgment highlights that equality requires examination of actual circumstances rather than reliance on outdated social assumptions.
The Court correctly identified the inconsistency in including married sons within the definition of family while excluding married daughters.
The decision expands the scope of constitutional protection against indirect gender discrimination.
It is likely to influence future challenges to service rules, welfare schemes, and compassionate appointment policies that discriminate against married daughters.
The ruling strengthens women's economic and legal rights within their natal families.