LAWS(KAR)-2011-7-18

K N SAVITHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On July 26, 2011
K.N. SAVITHA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader has filed statement of objections to contest the petition. Hence, pleadings being complete, the petition is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances, out of turn.

(3.) The father of the Petitioner one S.M. Nanjundaiah was working as a driver with the third Respondent. Apart from the Petitioner, Nanjundaiah had two other daughters all of whom were married. The Petitioner is the youngest of the children. She was married as on 31-3-2002. However, the Petitioner's marriage had broken down and by virtue of divorce proceedings having been initiated before the Court of Principal Civil Judge. Kolar, the marriage stood dissolved. The Petitioner thereafter has returned to her maternal home and was residing along with her father. She also has a child by her marriage who is a boy aged 3 years. Apart from the amount received at the settlement in divorce proceedings in a sum of Rs. 75,000/-, she has no other source of livelihood. The Petitioner's father having died in harness as on 24-10-2010 leaving behind his srilaw the Petitioner and her child, the Petitioner had made an application on 26-11-2010 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds while also specifically declaring that she has no other source of livelihood. The third Respondent on receipt of the application, has issued an endorsement to state that Petitioner cannot be appointed on compassionate grounds as she was the married daughter of S.M. Nanjundaiah and since the Rule does not contemplate a married daughter as being enabled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. That the Petitioner's case could not be considered in spite of the Petitioner having sought to claim that she was entirely dependent on her father for her livelihood along with her child and therefore was still in a position to claim as an unmarried daughter has been rejected. It is in that background, that the Petitioner is before this Court.