No evidence of temple demolition at Bhojshala site, Muslim petitioner tells MP High Court
Indore: A Muslim petitioner has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court that there is no historical evidence to support claims that a temple was demolished to construct a mosque at the disputed Bhojshala complex in Dhar district.
Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, appeared for the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society. He submitted before a bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi that assertions regarding demolition lack concrete proof. He argued that there is no verifiable record indicating that a specific temple was destroyed during any particular period to build a mosque at the site.
The court is hearing a batch of petitions concerning the religious character of the Bhojshala complex, claimed by Hindus as a temple and by Muslims as a mosque, as reported by The Observer Post. Hindu petitioners maintain that the site is a Saraswati temple built by Raja Bhoj of the Parmar dynasty, while the Muslim side identifies it as the Kamal Maula Mosque linked to a Sufi saint.
Khurshid contended that the mosque structure was built during the rule of the then administration and not through any act of forcible demolition. He also questioned the historical material relied upon by the opposing side, referring to a 2003 communication attributed to the British High Commission, which he said suggested that a statue believed to be of Goddess Saraswati is in fact that of a Jain deity.
He urged the court to examine all documentary and historical evidence in accordance with legal standards. He also stressed that such disputes must be adjudicated on the basis of established principles governing civil suits.
Referring to the Ayodhya verdict, Khurshid submitted that claims over religious sites must be determined through evidence rather than historical narratives alone.
Citing historical accounts that indicated Dhar as the capital of the Parmar rulers, the senior advocate said, it has witnessed multiple phases of political change and reconstruction. He referred to figures such as Ain-ul-Mulk Multani to argue that shifts in control over the region did not necessarily involve destruction of existing religious structures. The court will resume hearing the matter on Monday.
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.
K'taka HC Orders Rs 75k monthly support to rape victim, grants conditional stay in case
Bengaluru (PTI): The High Court of Karnataka on Friday directed a petitioner accused of repeated rape on false promise of marriage to pay Rs 75,000 monthly towards the sustenance of the victim and their 10-month-old child, while granting an interim stay on further criminal proceedings against him.
The order was passed by Justice M Nagaprasanna while hearing a writ petition filed by 22-year-old engineering student Srikrishna J Rao, who had sought quashing of proceedings pending against him in a sessions court in Mangaluru under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The bench noted that the petitioner and the victim, aged 22 and 20 respectively, were in a relationship that evolved into intimacy, resulting in the birth of a child. It recorded that the petitioner is the biological father, a fact that is medically substantiated and undisputed.
Taking into account the financial vulnerability of the young mother and her family, Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the woman had been "thrust prematurely into the responsibilities of motherhood" and was now burdened with unforeseen obligations after the petitioner allegedly reneged on his promise of marriage.
Accordingly, an interim order of stay of further proceedings pending before the VI Additional Principal District and Sessions Court, Mangaluru, was "granted qua the petitioner, subject to a crucial condition that the petitioner, either personally or through his parents, the accused in companion petitions, shall provide financial support to the complainant and the child, in the form of a sum of Rs 75,000 per month, to ensure the sustenance and welfare of the mother and the 10 month old baby, until the final disposal of this petition," the order read.
The first instalment is to be paid within one week, on or before May 1, 2026, and subsequent payments are to be made regularly.
The court further emphasised that although the petitioner is a student, such considerations cannot override the pressing needs of the child and the mother, stating that "justice, in its equitable dimension, demands a balanced approach." It also directed the victim, her family, and relatives to refrain from engaging with the media until the matter reaches its judicial conclusion.
The petition has been tagged with connected matters and is scheduled for further hearing on June 5, 2026.
