The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has allowed the transfer of the Iddat case against the PTI’s founding chairman Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi. The case has been shifted to the court of Additional Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal after Additional Sessions Judge Shahrukh Arjumand requested the high court in this regard. Earlier the sessions court Islamabad was scheduled to announce its final verdict in this case on May 29. The court could not announce its decision when the complainant – the former husband of Bushra Bibi – Khawar Maneka expressed a lack of confidence in the court of Judge Shahrukh Arjumand.
Earlier. the said court reserved the verdict over the appeals of the former prime minister and his wife seeking dismissal of their seven-year conviction awarded by a civil court. The court was set to announce this verdict on the above-said date, but there happened an exchange of hot words between the lawyer of the petitioners and the complainant.
The complainant expressed dissatisfaction over the court in question and pleased the court to transfer this case to some other court. Earlier this court rejected the same request of the complainant. The court in response to this request in its judgment said that the complainant’s lawyer should present final arguments before the court on May 8, otherwise, appeals would be fixed for the final decision. If the complainant’s lawyer filed to present final arguments before the court during the next hearing, then the court will not grant him more time. Afterward, it decided on this case and kept the judgment reserved.
The court was to announce it on May 28, but following the public holiday on this date it was to be announced the next day. Observing the developments concerning dissatisfaction over the court by the complainant and the exchange of hot words, they wrote the registrar of the IHC seeking its guidance on the transfer of this case to some other court. The court requested the registrar’s office that the complainant again expressed dissatisfaction over the court and has always created problems in this regard.
It said that the lack of confidence of the complainant in the court could make its decision controversial. The judge requested to get this case shifted. The judge before announcing the verdict left the courtroom. It is also worth mentioning here that after the complainant left the courtroom, the petitioner’s lawyer attacked him with slaps and fists for causing a delay in the judgment. The PTI was expecting a decision in its favor, but its hopes were dashed to the ground after it was not announced. The PTI then launched a social media campaign against Judge Arjumand saying that justice delayed meant justice denied. Afterward, the Islamabad police also registered a case against the attackers of the complainant.
The PTI leaders including Barrister Gohar, Shibli Faraz, and Omer Ayub held long media talks over this issue and suggested that the should take against the complainant instead of writing tio the High Court for the transfer of this case. They alleged that this delay in this case was causing shame to the women’s community.
However, now the shifting of this case will surely make it some lengthy. The PTI’s appeal sought revocation of a civil court decision under which both Khan and his wife were awarded a seven-year sentence for their marriage during the Iddat period –a 130-day abstinence period for a Muslim woman before she seeks a second marriage after divorce or due to the death of her husband. The civil court awarded seven-year imprisonment to Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi and imposed a fine of Rs. 500,000 each on the couple.
Senior Civil Judge Qudratullah announced this verdict on the complaint filed by Bushra’s former husband According to the reported verdict of this court both Khan and Bushra Bibi were found guilty under Section 496 of the Pakistan Penal Code. This section is about a marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful grounds. The order further said that the two would be imprisoned for a further four months if they failed to pay the fines.
According to the superior courts of the country, formalizing nikah (marriage) during Iddat does not entail annulment of marriage. The charges against the couple were framed in November under PPC Sections 34 (common intention), 496 and 496-B (fornication). The 496-B charge was later dropped by the IHC.
(By Rana Kashif)
