Back
Married Daughter's Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Marriage: Andhra Pradesh HC
In a significant ruling that reinforces gender equality in welfare schemes, the has held that a married daughter cannot be denied consideration for solely on the ground of her marital status. Justice Balaji Medamalli, presiding over a single-judge bench, set aside an order by the that rejected the claim of a married daughter, citing the state’s guidelines.
A Daughter's Bond, Not Severed by Marriage
The case arose from the death of Boyana Chenchu Krishnaiah, a driver with the ’s Srikalahasti Depot, who died in harness on . He left behind his wife, a son living separately in Bangalore, and a married daughter, Boyana Sony. The daughter’s husband was unemployed, and the family claimed she was wholly dependent on the deceased.
The deceased’s wife applied for for her daughter, submitting all requisite certificates—family member, no-earning member, and no-property certificates. However, the respondent authorities rejected the application on the ground that the second petitioner, being a married daughter, was ineligible under , which restricts such appointments to married daughters only when they have no siblings.
Challenging the Stereotype
The petitioners argued that marriage does not sever a daughter’s bond with her parental family nor conclusively determine her dependency. They contended that the daughter remained wholly dependent even after marriage, and her marital status could not be a valid ground for rejection. They placed reliance on a coordinate bench decision of the same court in W.P.No.8025 of 2025, which had allowed a similar claim.
The countered that the government order explicitly limits eligibility to married daughters who have no brothers or sisters. Since the deceased also had a son, the daughter was ineligible, they argued.
The Precedent
Justice Medamalli turned to the ’s landmark judgment in Kulsum Nisha v. State of UP (2026), which struck down the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of “family” for dependent quota allotments. The Apex Court held that such exclusion was founded on a —assuming that upon marriage, a daughter ceases to be a member of or dependent upon her parental family. This presumption, the ruled, is “incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality.”
The High Court quoted extensively from the judgment, noting that to considerations of dependency, financial need, or residence. “ and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone,” the had observed.
Setting Aside the Stereotype
Applying these principles, Justice Medamalli held that the second petitioner was entitled to consideration for , as she was dependent on the deceased. The impugned rejection order, dated , was found unsustainable.
However, the court noted that following the merger of into the state government, the District Collector is now the competent authority for compassionate appointments under . Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the District Collector with a direction to consider the daughter’s case “without reference to the objection that she is a married daughter.” The collector must complete this exercise within four months.
Key Observations
- “The assumption that upon marriage a daughter ceases to be a member of, or dependent upon, her parental family is .”
- “Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency.”
- “The distinction is founded upon a that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes a member of another family and loses all ties with her natal family.”
The judgment marks a progressive step in aligning state policies with constitutional values, ensuring that welfare measures like are not denied based on outdated gender stereotypes. The writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were closed.
