New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a dependent married daughter cannot be excluded from the definition of ‘family’ and would be entitled to get employment or be allotted a ration shop if either of her parents died.A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe faulted a provision of the UP government’s order relating to allotment of PDS shops on dependent quota for excluding married daughters from the definition of ‘family’ and said it violated the principle of equality inherent in the constitutional framework. “The exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of ‘family’ cannot be tolerated,” it said.Writing the judgment, Justice Aradhe said marital status has no logical nexus to the dependency status and the purpose of compassionate appointment or allotment of ration shops, which enables the family to overcome the financial hardship caused by the death of the breadwinner.The bench said that marriage neither severs the bond between the family of the daughter and her parents nor provides a valid ground for presuming absence of dependency. The UP government order includes “unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters” as dependents. The Supreme Court said that this would mean including dependent married daughters also.“Contemporary social realities show that many married daughters live with, support or depend on their parents,” it said and asked why a married daughter was excluded from the definition of ‘family’ while married sons were not.The bench said, “This distinction is based on the gender-based stereotype that a daughter, after marriage, becomes a member of another family and loses all ties with her ancestral family. Such a notion is inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of equality and perpetuates the historical notion of gender inequality which the Constitution seeks to eliminate.”“Equally, there may be sons who are not dependent on the family despite being included in the definition. Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone,” the judges said.“The impugned provision proceeds on the presumption that after marriage, a daughter ceases to be a member of her parents’ family or dependent on her. Such presumption is constitutionally unacceptable,” it said while accepting the arguments of amicus curiae Rukmini Bobde.“Complete exclusion of all married daughters… cannot be justified on the basis of speculation… Constitutional decision cannot be founded on assumptions which are broad and divorced from lived realities,” the bench said.