PTI Chairman's Imran Khan summoned by court in 'un-Islamic' marriage case
Shares
A local court in Islamabad has issued a summon for former Prime Minister and PTI Chairman Imran Khan to appear on September 25 in a case related to his alleged 'un-Islamic' marriage with Bushra Bibi, as reported by Express News. The summons, issued by Civil Judge Qudratullah, instructs the Superintendent of Attock Jail to ensure Imran Khan's presence in court.
Imran Khan is currently in Attock jail following his conviction in the Toshakhana case, with his arrest taking place on August 5, 2023, at his Zaman Park residence in Lahore. During the upcoming hearing, the judge will also assess arguments presented by Imran's counsel, who has challenged the court's jurisdiction in handling the case.
The counsel has been directed to prepare these arguments after requesting additional time from the court. It's worth noting that Imran Khan is facing charges of marrying his third wife during her Iddat, an Islamic term referring to the waiting period for a woman before remarrying after the death of her spouse or divorce.
In July, the former prime minister challenged a trial court's decision to accept a petition seeking criminal proceedings against him and Bushra Bibi for allegedly cohabiting after their initial nikah, which was claimed to have occurred without completing the mandatory iddat period for Bushra Bibi.
Judicial magistrate Qudratullah in Islamabad issued a detailed judgment on July 18, stating that the petition against the former premier regarding his 'illegal' marriage was admissible and ordered Imran and his wife to appear in court. Earlier, on July 14, Islamabad Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Azam Khan remanded the case to the judicial magistrate, dismissing another civil court's verdict that declared the plea challenging the marriage's legality as inadmissible.
Imran's petition argues that the allegations in the private complaint do not constitute an offense under Section 496 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), and continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the legal process. It further contends that the crucial question regarding the offense under Section 496 PPC was not examined by the trial or revisional court.
Additionally, it raises concerns about the revisional court's decision to proceed without hearing the second party, which, according to the petition, compromises the entire proceedings.
