JUDGMENT : S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.8/2017 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad have come up in this appeal impugning the judgment dated 03.11.2018. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: Appellant Nos.1 and 2 herein would contend that appellant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of deceased Mallappa Konanavar, who was working as driver in respondent No.4-NWKRTC. According to the appellants, the marriage between appellant No.1 and Mallappa took place on 05.05.1982. It is stated that, during the said period he was not employed and he was carrying on agricultural activity. Subsequently, in the year 1993 he secured a job as driver in NWKRTC. In the meanwhile, it is stated that in the wedlock between appellant No.1 and Mallappa, appellant No.2-Nagavva was born. Thereafter, the said Mallappa died on 13.07.2016. After his death, the appellants herein approached respondent No.4-NWKRTC seeking terminal benefits enure to the estate of Mallappa and also for payment of family pension. 3. It is at that time, they were confronted with another set of claim by respondent No.1 to 3 herein wherein respondent No.1 would claim that she got married to Mallappa on 07.10.1994. In the wedlock she got two sons by name, Veeresh and Sunil who are referred to as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in this proceedings. Incidentally, respondent No.4 informed appellant Nos.1 and 2 that the deceased Mallappa had furnished information to the office that his legally wedded wife is respondent No.1-Smt.Muttawwa. It is in this background, the litigation between the parties was commenced in the suit in O.S.No.8/2017 being filed wherein to demonstrate the marriage between appellant No.1 and deceased Mallappa, the appellant No.1 who was plaintiff No.1 in the Court below adduced evidence as P.W.1 and they have also examined three witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4 in support of their case. They produced in all 11 documents which are marked as Exs.P1 to P11. In that, Ex.P3 is the voters list of 1993 which clearly discloses that, as on that date, appellant No.1 was shown as wife of deceased Mallappa. They produced in all 11 documents which are marked as Exs.P1 to P11. In that, Ex.P3 is the voters list of 1993 which clearly discloses that, as on that date, appellant No.1 was shown as wife of deceased Mallappa. Exs.P9 and P10-Election identity card and ration card of plaintiff No.1, Ex.P8-School certificate of plaintiff No.2, Ex.P5-Aadhar card of plaintiff No.1 and also Ex.P11-Marriage invitation card of plaintiff No.2 were relied upon to demonstrate the relationship as husband and wife between appellant No.1 and deceased Mallappa and also the relationship of father and daughter between appellant No.2 and Mallappa. 4. Per contra, defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the Court below who are respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein examined three witnesses as D.Ws.1 to 3 in support of their case and got marked 18 documents as Exs.D1 to D18. Again these documents are marriage invitation card between defendant No.1 and Mallappa, Aadhar card, education certificate of respondent No.2 and 3 including service particulars of Mallappa where he has stated that defendant No.1 is his wife. It is based on these documents, the Court below dismissed the suit filed by the appellants herein in O.S.No.8/2017. Being aggrieved by the same, they have come up in this appeal. 5. In this appeal, after notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 entered appearance through learned counsel Sri.P.G.Chikkanaragund. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are represented by learned counsel Sri.Shivakumar S.Badawadagi. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and as well as the respondents, perused the judgment of the Court below along with the documents produced and relied upon by both the parties in the said suit and as well as the evidence recorded in support of their plea and defence. On going through the same, this Court would observe that the following points that arise for our consideration. (i) Whether the Court below was justified in refusing to believe Ex.P3-voters list of 1993 which is admittedly prior to the alleged date of marriage between defendant No.1 and deceased Mallappa? (ii) Whether the Court below was justified in refusing to look into the public document which had come into existence prior to the alleged marriage of Mallappa with defendant No.1 in indicating that appellant No.1 herein is legally wedded wife of deceased Mallappa? 7. (ii) Whether the Court below was justified in refusing to look into the public document which had come into existence prior to the alleged marriage of Mallappa with defendant No.1 in indicating that appellant No.1 herein is legally wedded wife of deceased Mallappa? 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and on going through the material available on record, it is clearly seen that, in the entire episode, the culprit is Mallappa Konanavar who is no more. The records would indicate that he got married to appellant No.1 herein in the year 1982 and led marital life with her resulting in the birth of appellant No.2. The records would also indicate that he did not have any steady job till 1993 when he secured job as driver with respondent No.4. It is thereafter, he has taken defendant No.1 as wife which on the face of it appears to be in suppressing his marriage with appellant No.1 which had taken place much earlier to that. It is also seen that in the relationship with defendant No.1 he has sired two male sons who are respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. In any event, during the subsistence of his marriage with appellant No.1 and during the life time of appellant No.1 his association with respondent No.1 herein cannot be accepted as marriage and the relationship cannot be given the status of husband and wife. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court would observe that, finding of the Court below is required to be interfered. While doing so, the relationship of husband and wife between appellant No.1 and deceased Mallappa should be considered. If that is considered, she will be the legally wedded wife of deceased Mallappa and as such, his legal representatives who are entitled to his terminal benefits and as well as pensionary benefits. In that view of the matter, this Court would observe that, appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the persons who are entitled to terminal and service benefits of the deceased Mallappa. 9. While making such observation, this Court would also notice that, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are born in the relationship of Mallappa with defendant No.1. In that view of the matter, this Court would observe that, appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the persons who are entitled to terminal and service benefits of the deceased Mallappa. 9. While making such observation, this Court would also notice that, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are born in the relationship of Mallappa with defendant No.1. Though it is difficult for this Court to accept defendant No.1 as legally wedded wife of Mallappa, it is no doubt true that the children born in the said association should be considered as the children born to the said Mallappa and that they would be entitled to succeed to his estate at par with the legitimate children of deceased Mallappa. 10. The right of Veeresh and Sunil is required to be considered in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and Another Vs R.Tripathi reported in AIR 2019 Supreme Court 666 where the right of the children born to the woman who is in relationship with a married man which also to be considered at par with the legitimate children sofar as their right to seek appointment on compassionate ground and also the share in the property of the deceased persons. It is on the basis of that, the right of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is considered. It is needless to say that, since the relationship of defendant No.1 in the Court below who is respondent No.1 herein with deceased Mallappa is during the subsistence of his marriage with appellant No.1, the said relationship cannot be recognized and she cannot be considered as wife, even though her name reflected in the service records as wife, as per the declaration made by the deceased Mallappa. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court would observe that, in the instant case, the application which is filed by respondent No.3-Sunil seeking appointment on compassionate ground due to death of Mallappa should be allowed to be considered by respondent No.4. However, the legitimate right of appellant No.1 to seek pension as widow of Mallappa cannot be taken away, even though the name of defendant No.1 is shown as his wife in the service records of the deceased Mallappa. With this, this Court would observe that, appellant No.1 is legally wedded wife of the deceased Mallappa would be entitled to receive pensionary benefits. With this, this Court would observe that, appellant No.1 is legally wedded wife of the deceased Mallappa would be entitled to receive pensionary benefits. So far as the terminal benefits are concerned, the same shall be received not only by appellant Nos.1 and 2, but also respondent Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, this Court would observe that respondent No.3-Sunil having filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, the same shall be the share for which he is entitled to in the estate of the deceased Mallappa. 12. Out of the amount that would be given to the estate of Mallappa by respondent No.4-NWKRTC, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-is ordered to be paid to appellant No.2 and Rs.50,000/-to appellant No.1 who is assured of pensionary benefits on regular basis and balance amount which according to respondent No.5 works out to nearly Rs.6,00,000/-shall be paid to respondent No.2-Veeresh who is said to be burdened with responsibility of clearing loan incurred by Mallappa in pledging the house in which they are residing. 13. With such observation, the judgment rendered by the family Court in O.S.No.8/2017 is hereby modified in the aforesaid terms. 14. It is made clear that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, respondent No.4-NWKRTC may consider the application of the Sunil for his appointment on compassionate ground. So far as appellant Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, to pay them a sum of Rs.50,000/-to appellant No.1 and Rs.2,00,000/-to appellant No.2 and balance amount which according to respondent No.4 would works out to nearly Rs.6,00,000/-to be paid to Veeresh. 15. It is also stated that there are some more amount due from NWKRTC on the count of DCRG. Even that amount also should be paid in entirety to respondent No.2-Veeresh to cover up the liability, if any, incurred by Mallappa during his lifetime and any amount that would remain due to financial institution shall be paid by him and the balance shall be utilized for his personal use. With such observation, this appeal is allowed in part.