Plea against Imran’s nikah thrown out

Court in Islamabad says it cannot hear case as Imran-Bushra marriage took place in Lahore

ISLAMABAD:

 

A district and sessions court in Islamabad declared as inadmissible a petition that contented that former premier Imran Khan and former first lady Bushra Bibi cohabited despite the fact that their first nikah had taken place without completion of the latter’s mandatory iddat period.

The petitioner, a Muhammad Haneef, claimed that Bushra Bibi was divorced by her former husband in November 2017 and married Imran Khan on January 1, 2018 despite the fact that her iddat period had not completed “which is against the Sharia and the Muslim norms.”

The complainant submitted in the court the statements of Mufti Muhammad Saeed who conducted the marriage between Imran and Bushra and Awn Chaundhry—Imran’s close firend—who was one of the witnesses.

The court noted that the alleged nikah was solemnized in Lahore.  “Therefore, the offense, if any, was committed, [took place] within the jurisdiction of [the] learned court of competent jurisdiction [in] Lahore, which could have the cognizance thereof.”

The session court judge, Nasrumminallah, noted that the complainant if aggrieved of any act of the respondents should approach the court of competent jurisdiction in Lahore.

Describing the reasons for filing the petition in Islamabad, the petitioner said Imran and Bushra moved to the federal capital soon after their nikah and went into “valid retirement” at Imran’s Bani Gala residence. Therefore, he said, a court in Islamabad should hear the case.

When a husband and wife are alone together under circumstances that present no legal, moral or physical impediment to marital intercourse, they are said to be in “valid retirement” which is a translation of “khilwat-us-sahiha”, a term in Sharia law

The court, however, said it lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter as the nikah was solemnized in the territorial jurisdiction of a competent court in Lahore. “Hence the instant petition is not preceed-able within the territorial jurisdiction of this court,” it said.