In a landmark judgment, married daughters continue to part of parents’ family and any rule Bombay High Court

Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 5592 of 2009, decided on August13, 2014

In this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the exclusion of a married daughter from the expression "family" for being entitled to be considered for grant of retail kerosene license under Government Resolution dated 20th February, 2004 can be said to be legal and valid.

In a landmark judgment, a bench comprising of A.S. Oka and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ held that married daughters continue to part of parents’ family and any rule, which discriminates against married women is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of india. In the present case, the petitioner had appealed against the rejection of her claim to the kerosene retail licence held by her deceased mother, by the Minister of Food and Civil Supplies on the ground that as a married daughter, she could not be considered a part of her mother’s family.

Under the State Government Rules/Circulars, a “family” included the husband, wife, major son, major unmarried daughter, daughter-in-law, dependent parents, legal heir and adopted son. A divorced daughter or widow could be considered part of the family, but any licence granted would be revoked if she remarried. Mr. Rahul D Motkari, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 a daughter is entitled to succeed to the estate of her mother and prayed for setting aside the said government rules, which prevented her from doing so.

After listening to both sides of the argument, the Court came to the conclusion that the exclusion of a married daughter did not appear to be based on any logic or other justifiable criteria. Marriage of a daughter who is otherwise a legal representative of a licence holder cannot be held to her disadvantage in the matter of seeking transfer of licence in her name on the death of the licence holder. The Court struck down the discriminatory rules 22.12.1997, 16.8.2001, 10.12.2003 and 20.2.2004 to the extent they excluded a married daughter from being considered as a member of the “family” and asked the state to reconsider the petitioner’s application for grant of the kerosene retail licence.

In view of our aforesaid findings, the revision application under clause-16 of the Licensing Order, 1979 will have to be remitted back for fresh decision in the light of our aforesaid findings. Hence, we pass the following order :

(a) The Government Resolutions/Circulars dated 22.12.1997, 16.8.2001, 10.12.2003 and 20.2.2004 to the extent they exclude a married daughter from being considered as a member of the "family" of a deceased retail license holder are held to be violative 18 / 20 Deshmane wp.5592-09.doc of the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(b) The respondent No.1 - State of Maharashtra is directed to issue appropriate Government Resolution in the light of the conclusion recorded in paragraph-13 of this judgment.

(c) The impugned order dated 17.6.2009 is quashed and set aside and the revision application No.450 under Clause 16 of the Licensing Order of 1979 is remitted to the State Government for fresh decision in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the findings recorded in the order dated 17.6.2009 and the said revision application shall be decided afresh in accordance with law.

(d) The petitioner and respondent No.4(a) are directed to appear before the Ministry of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection on 16.9.2014. The revision application shall be decided within a period of three 19 / 20 Deshmane wp.5592-09.doc months from the date of appearance of the parties before the said authority.

(e) The Writ Petition is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner