Iddat case: Court requested to dismiss complainant’s pleas with heavy fine

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founding chairman Imran Khan and his wife’s counsel in the Iddat case termed the two applications filed by the complainant seeking constitution of a medical board and taking the opinion of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) and Islamic scholars an attempt to further delay the case and requested the court to dismiss these pleas with a heavy fine.

Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka while hearing the case adjourned the proceedings till Friday (today) after the completion of the lawyer of Khawar Maneka, the complainant and former husband of Khan’s wife Bushra Bibi, Zahid Asif Chaudhry’s arguments.

During the hearing, Bushra Bibi’s lawyer Usman Riaz Gull told the court that in the Daniel Pearl case, the court had decided that under what circumstances the court could summon additional evidence. The 1997 law can be followed now, he said, adding that the Islamabad High Court (IHC) had ordered the session to decide the main appeals within one month, he said.

He said the complainant filed a petition before the IHC for a review of the IHC decision concerning to decide the case within one month and he sought general adjournment of the same case which was rejected by the IHC. Now a third attempt has been made to stop the proceedings of the case, therefore, these two petitions have been filed. He requested to reject both the petitions.

“These petitions are not admissible, therefore, reject it with fine,” he said.

Maneka’s lawyer Zahid Asif Chaudhry, while arguing before the court, said that the defence stated that the Iddat period is 39 days but according to Muslim family law, the total period of Iddat is 90 days. The court needs to take the point of view of the IIC, the Federal Sharia Court and Islamic scholars regarding Iddat, he said.

He said that the defence also stated that they were not allowed to produce their witnesses so if they wanted to present witnesses or any evidence they should produce them before the court.

During the hearing, the associate of Zahid Asif, the lead counsel of Maneka requested the court that a medical board consisting of qualified doctors be constituted and until the medical report comes, court could not reach the conclusion of providing justice. He also submitted different courts’ previous decisions regarding the submission of additional evidence during appeals. Is there any law that allows the constitution of the medical board without the consent of a woman, asked Zahid Asid. Yes, the medical board can be formed, his assistant replied.

Maneka’s counsel said that his client’s second request is regarding approaching the Federal Sharia Court and CII. An opinion should be taken from senior religious scholars regarding Iddat, he said, adding that according to our stance, the total Iddat period is 90 days.

He requested the court to not hold further hearings of this case until the opinion of religious scholars comes. He pleaded to stop further proceedings of the case.

He further said that this is not an ordinary case as it involves a former prime minister and his wife.

Iqbal Kakar another counsel of Maneka said that his client has so far disclosed only 30 percent of things regarding the matter. The court has the authority to bring further evidence on the record, he said, adding that a medical board may be formed so that the report may come in their favour and they should be acquitted.

He said that judges cannot give their point of view if there is an Islamic matter, the judge will take guidance from the CII. If the court orders the constitution of the medical board and Bushra Bibi refuses to appear before it then the court can take an impression from it, he said. The court adjourned the hearing of the case after the court’s time ended.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024