In Brief
A married daughter in Uttar Pradesh was rejected for a fair price shop license on compassionate grounds solely because she was married, under a state policy that excluded married daughters from the definition of "family" while including married sons. The Supreme Court struck down this exclusion as unconstitutional. The Court held that marital status cannot determine eligibility for welfare benefits and that dependency must be assessed individually as a factual matter, not presumed based on gender stereotypes. The Court reinterpreted the policy to include married daughters who satisfy actual dependency and residency requirements, ending gender-based discrimination in state welfare schemes.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.