Court issues notices on Imran, Bushra appeals

Court hears arguments, case adjourned to March 11


Fiaz Mahmood March 01, 2024
Former PTI Chairman Imran Khan with his wife Bushra Bibi: PHOTO: FILE

ISLAMABAD:

A judge at the Islamabad district and sessions court on Thursday issued notices to the relevant parties on the appeal filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi against their conviction in a case of marriage during the 'Iddat period'.

Shahrukh Arjumand heard preliminary arguments from Imran and Bibi’s lawyer Salman Akram Raja, who told the court that Imran and Bibi wedded in Lahore but the case was filed in Islamabad. He added that an application about the jurisdiction had been filed but no hearing was conducted.

Raja told the court that the case of Iddat was tried under Section 496 of the Pakistan Penal Code. According to case, he continued, Bibi’s first husband Khawar Manika divorced her in November 2017 and she married Imran on January 1, 2018.

Read also: Imran, Bushra's 'illicit relations' began in 2014 sit-in: Maneka

He added that according to the case, Bibi married to the PTI founder 48 days after the divorce. Bibi's lawyer, Usman Gul, told the court that according to a Supreme Court judgment, marriage could take place after 39 days of divorce. He added that the couple got married after about 70 days.

Raja added that the PTI founder wanted to give evidence in his defence but the court deprived him of the right to defence. He also said that as per the Supreme Court, if a woman gives the statement that the Iddat period has been completed, it would be accepted.

According to Raja, Manika admitted to the media that Bibi was a religious woman. And almost six years later, the lawyer continued, Manika filed the complaint against Bibi and the PTI founder. After hearing the arguments, the court adjourned the proceedings until March 11 after issuing notices.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ