ISLAMABAD: A local court hearing the Iddat case against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founding chairman Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi on Wednesday sought arguments on Khawar Maneka’s pleas seeking opinion of medical experts and Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) and scholars opinion on the matter on Thursday (today).
Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka, while hearing the case, issued notices to both parties on two different applications filed by Maneka through his counsel Zahid Asif Chaudhry and sought arguments on July 11 (today).
The plea filed by Maneka seeking medical expert opinion stated that the proprietary and the element of the dispensation of justice demands that the medical opinion of concerned medical experts of some government health issues through the medical board by examining the convict Bushra Bibi is necessary and essential just for the decision of the instant matter. It says that in this regard, the court has power under sections 428 and 375 of CrPC as well as under other enabling provisions.
The petition says that in light of the above, it is requested that the medical opinion kindly be taken from the concerned highly qualified medical experts by comprising a medical board by some government medical institution regarding her menstrual system/condition in the year 2018 that the ambiguity regarding the said two stances of the appellant, in order to procure the end of justice.
The second petition filed by the complainant stated that the dispensation of justice and propriety demands that the matter of such grave and important questions of the Quran and Sunnah approaching the above-cited forums is necessary and essential for the decision of the instant matter and to preclude the misinterpretation of Islamic injunction as per the whims and wishes of the appellant. It says that it is requested to seek Islamic opinion and guidance from the CII, the federal Sharia Court, and from some renowned impartial and balanced religious scholars on the subject of Iddat.
Earlier during the hearing, Bushra Bibi’s counsel Barrister Salman Safdar and Khadija Siddiqui argued before the court. Khadija Siddiqui, while arguing before the court, said that in the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) there is no mention of the word Iddat. The former husband is not authorised to opinion about the completion of the Iddat period, she said, adding that the former has filed the complaint after 2,000 days.
She said that the preparation of the divorce certificate in the back date is not difficult. In Islam the Iddat period had been made compulsory due to pregnancy, she said, adding that Maneka did not file any petition in the family court for reconciliation. She said that the opponent of Imran Khan and his wife used this case to conduct character assassination of Khan and Bushra Bibi.
The counsel further said that if a husband solemnized Nikkah with his wife for immigration then it is called fraud. Either husband or wife committed fraud but in this case, both wife and husband were sentenced, she said, adding that Section 496 of PPC is related to marriage.
She said that under the law crime is committed when one of the parties either husband or wife commits fraud. But in this case, neither husband nor wife stated that fraud had been committed. Khan has contracted marriage with Bushra Bibi as per Shariah and legally.
Safdar, while arguing before the court, said that one point that Maneka remained silent for six years is sufficient for the acquittal of Bushra Bibi. He said that Maneka remained silent for six years and neither did he think of doing reconciliation nor he filed a petition in the family court.
He said that Maneka's children did not appear before the court as witnesses in this case. The allegation of Section 496 of Maneka proved false, he said, adding that Maneka confessed to overwriting and tampering of date over the divorce certificate during cross-examination. The complainant produced the photocopy of the divorce certificate and also committed forgery in it, he said.
Safdar said that the husband and wife did not deceive him but Maneka deceived the court by producing a tampered document before the court. Maneka told the court that due to Imran Khan, he divorced Bushra Bibi but there is no mention of this aspect in the divorce certificate, he said.
He said that Maneka has accepted that the stamp and signature of the union council are not present on the photocopy of the divorce certificate. The witness Awn Chaudhry during the cross-examination accepted that he developed differences with Imran Khan following the sugar crises, he said.
The lawyer said that in the divorce certificate, Maneka stated that he divorced Bushra Bibi and failed to end differences with her. He [Maneka] divorced Bushra Bibi three times in writing, he said. The court after hearing the arguments, adjourned the case till Thursday (today).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.