NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Tuesday ruled that a dependent married daughter could not be excluded from the definition of ‘family’ and would be entitled to seek employment or allotment of a ration shop if any of her parents died in harness.A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe faulted a provision of a UP govt order relating to allotment of PDS shop on dependent quota for excluding married daughters from the definition of ‘family’ and said it breached the doctrine of equality embedded in the constitutional framework. “Exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of ‘family’ cannot be sustained,” it said.Writing the judgment, Justice Aradhe said marital status bore no rational nexus to the status of dependency and the object of compassionate appointment or allotment of ration shops, which is to enable the family to overcome financial hardship caused due to death of the bread earner.The bench said marriage neither extinguished the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnished a valid basis to presume absence of dependency. The UP govt order included “unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters” as dependents. The SC said it would mean to include dependent married daughters.“Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support or remain dependent upon their parents,” it said and asked why a married daughter was excluded from the definition of ‘family’ when married sons were not.“The distinction is founded upon a gender-based stereotype that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes a member of another family and loses all ties with her natal family. Such a presumption is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality and perpetuates historical notions of gender inequality which the Constitution seeks to eradicate,” the bench said.“Equally, there may be sons who are not dependent upon the family despite being included within the definition. Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone,” the Justices added.“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,” it said, accepting the arguments of amicus curiae Rukmini Bobde.“A blanket exclusion of all married daughters cannot be justified on … speculative assumption … Constitutional adjudication cannot be founded on presumptions that are overbroad and disconnected from lived realities,” the bench said.