Verdicts rained down on Imran at lightning speed

PTI founding chairman, wife get seven years in jail in ‘illegal’ marriage case in third judgment in a week

RAWALPINDI:

A court on Saturday sentenced former premier Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, to seven years imprisonment in an “un-Islamic” marriage case – meaning it found that they had tied the knot while the former first lady was going through her period of Iddat.

Senior civil judge Qudratullah, while announcing a reserved verdict, also imposed a Rs500,000 fine each on the PTI founding chairman and his wife.

The written order read that the two would be imprisoned for a further four months if they failed to pay the fines.
This was the third conviction handed down to the deposed premier over the last five days.

Earlier this week, the PTI founding chairman and his wife were sentenced to 14-year imprisonment in the Toshakhana (gift repository) case.

Similarly, Imran and PTI leader Shah Mahmood Qureshi were handed down a jail term of 10 years in the cipher case this week as well.

The hearing of the “illegal” marriage case, which was filed by Bushra’s first husband, Khawar Maneka, was conducted within the premises of Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail.

Maneka alleged that Bushra had violated the Islamic practice of observing the mandatory pause, or Iddat, before marrying Imran.

Iddat is a mandatory waiting period that a Muslim woman must observe on account of the death of her husband or dissolution of the marriage.

Further, Maneka accused his ex-wife and Imran of having an adulterous relationship before their marriage.

The order read that Imran and Bushra were found guilty under Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Section 496 (marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage).

Earlier during the hearing, Maneka’s lawyer Rizwan Abbasi said in his final arguments that Bushra was divorced on Nov 14, 2017.

He continued that despite the long cross-examination of the witnesses, the accused could not deny the allegations and that was why the first marriage of Bushra and Imran took place on Jan 1, 2018.

Abbasi pointed out that after the completion if the Iddat period in Feb 2018, the oral marriage took place again.

He maintained that his client Maneka had been defrauded and deprived of his right to Rujuh (resumption of conjugal relationship) because of his former wife’s re-marriage.

Read US says Imran's sentence 'matter for Pakistani courts'

Imran’s lawyer Salman Akram Raja said in his final arguments that the divorce took place in April 2017 and there was evidence of it.

He added that they wanted to present the third party witness in the case.

He contended that there had been no fraud as the Supreme Court had decided that the minimum duration of Iddat could be 39 days.

He added that from Nov 14, 2023 to Jan 1, 2024, the period came to 48 days.

The lawyer pointed out that Maneka had suddenly filed his complaint five years and 11 months after his ex-wife’s re-marriage.

He noted that Bushra in her statement to the court had said that her ex-husband divorced her orally in April 2017 and the document that he had presented in Nov 2017 was forged.

The lawyer further pointed out that Bushra in her statement observed that Maneka had remained in custody till Nov 14, 2023, after which he filed the complaint.

The court then announced its verdict.

According to the country’s superior judiciary, the union of husband and wife without observing the period of Iddat was an irregular marriage that might have consequences under Islamic law but it could not be declared as void.

Maneka filed the complaint under sections 34 (common intention), 496, and 496-B (fornication) of the PPC.

Last month, the civil judge, Qudratullah, indicted the couple in the illegal marriage case.

Later in January, the IHC stopped the proceedings against the couple and restrained the prosecution from producing the evidence in the case.

However on Jan 31, the IHC observed that it could not intervene in the trial process once the suspects had been indicted. However, it dropped the charge of Section 496-B from the case as it was not framed by the trial court.