In Shephali Chakraborty v. State of W.B., the Court allowed a mother to give effect to a development agreement involving her minor child’s undivided share in inherited property under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. It reasoned that where a development agreement converts an unproductive undivided interest into tangible residential accommodation and secure monetary benefits demonstrably in the child’s best interests, permission ought to be granted subject to safeguards.[4]
Married daughters and fair price shop “dependent” quota
In Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court quashed the denial of a fair price shop allotment to a married daughter solely on the ground of her marital status. It held that once “dependency” is accepted as the governing criterion, excluding married daughters is irrational and violates Articles 14 and 15(1) by reinforcing gender stereotypes.[4]
