Non-marital children's claim over parents' ancestral properties: SC reserves verdict
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict on a 2011 plea pertaining to the vexatious legal issue whether non-marital children were entitled to a share in the ancestral property of their parents under Hindu laws.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard submissions of several lawyers on a plea which is pending since 2011.
The top court will also decide the question whether the share of such children is limited only to the self-acquired property of their parents under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
These questions were referred to a larger bench by a two-judge bench of the apex court on March 31, 2011.
"The question which crops up in the facts of this case is whether illegitimate children are entitled to a share in the coparcenary (ancestral) property or whether their share is limited only to the self acquired property of their parents under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act," the bench had said while referring the case to a larger bench.
The court had said the provision makes it very clear that a child of a "void or voidable marriage" can only claim rights to the property of his parents, and no one else.
The bench had disagreed with the earlier findings of the top court that such children will have no right in ancestral properties of their parents.
"With changing social norms of legitimacy in every society, including ours, what was illegitimate in the past may be legitimate today. The concept of legitimacy stems from social consensus, in the shaping of which various social groups play a vital role... in a changing society law cannot afford to remain static...," it had said.
According to Hindu law, in a void marriage, the parties do not have the status of husband and wife.
As per the statute, husband and wife have the status in the voidable marriage.
In a void marriage, no decree of nullity is required to annul the marriage. While, in a voidable marriage decree of nullity is required.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
HC says Bhojshala complex is Goddess Saraswati temple, scraps ASI order on namaz on premises
Indore (PTI): In a big win for the Hindu side, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday declared that the disputed Bhojshala complex in Dhar district is a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, and the Centre and ASI can decide on its administration and management.
The HC's Indore bench, which was hearing the case, also said the Muslim community, which called the 11th century monument Kamal Maula Mosque, may approach the state government for allotment of separate land in the district for construction of a mosque.
In its much-awaited verdict in the Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex dispute, the court observed that there were indications of a Sanskrit teaching centre and a temple of Goddess Saraswati existing in Bhojshala.
The religious character of the disputed complex of Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque indicates it is a temple of Goddess Saraswati, noted the HC.
ALSO READ: Bihar CM walks to secretariat from official residence after PM's appeal to spend wisely
"If the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society applies for land allotment for building a mosque in Dhar district, the state government can consider it," maintained the division bench.
The HC scrapped the 2003 Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) order which allowed Muslims to offer Friday prayers on Bhojshala premises.
Nearly 1,200 police personnel were deployed in and around the complex ahead of the HC ruling.
Dhar Collector Rajeev Ranjan Meena warned of strict action against anyone spreading objectionable content on social media, as the administration erected barricades at the site where Friday prayers coincided with the court verdict.
The long-running dispute pertains to the religious nature of the ASI-protected monument in Dhar district.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala to be a temple dedicated to Vagdevi (Goddess Saraswati), while the Muslim side calls the monument Kamal Maula Mosque. A petitioner from the Jain community claims the disputed complex is a medieval Jain temple and gurukul.
After the controversy over the Bhojshala complex erupted, the ASI issued an order on April 7, 2003, permitting Hindus to worship at the complex every Tuesday and Muslims to offer namaz there every Friday. The Hindu side challenged the order in the HC, seeking exclusive rights to worship at the complex.
A division bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi of the HC's Indore bench began regular hearings on five petitions and one writ appeal related to the case on April 6 this year.
After hearing all the parties against the backdrop of differing religious beliefs, historical claims, complex legal provisions, and thousands of documents related to the disputed monument, the bench had reserved its decision on May 12.
During the hearing, petitioners from the Hindu, Muslim, and Jain communities presented detailed arguments and sought exclusive worship rights for their communities at the monument.
The ASI, after conducting a scientific survey of the monument, indicated in its over 2,000-page report that a massive structure dating back to the reign of the Parmar kings of Dhar predated the mosque, and that the current disputed structure was built using repurposed temple components.
The Hindu side claimed that coins, sculptures, and inscriptions found by the ASI during its scientific survey prove the complex was originally a temple.
However, the Muslim side argued in court that the ASI's survey report was "biased" and prepared to support the claims of the Hindu petitioners.
Refuting this, the ASI told the court the scientific survey process was carried out with the help of experts, including three from the Muslim community.
The HC had ordered the ASI to conduct a scientific survey of the Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex on March 11, 2024. The ASI began the survey on March 22 that year and, after a detailed 98-day survey, submitted its report to the High Court on July 15.
