A local court in Islamabad has issued a summon for former Prime Ministerand PTI Chairman Imran Khan to appear on September 25 in a case related tohis alleged ‘un-Islamic’ marriage with Bushra Bibi, as reported by ExpressNews. The summons, issued by Civil Judge Qudratullah, instructs theSuperintendent of Attock Jail to ensure Imran Khan’s presence in court.
Imran Khan is currently in Attock jail following his conviction in theToshakhana case, with his arrest taking place on August 5, 2023, at hisZaman Park residence in Lahore. During the upcoming hearing, the judge willalso assess arguments presented by Imran’s counsel, who has challenged thecourt’s jurisdiction in handling the case.
The counsel has been directed to prepare these arguments after requestingadditional time from the court. It’s worth noting that Imran Khan is facingcharges of marrying his third wife during her Iddat, an Islamic termreferring to the waiting period for a woman before remarrying after thedeath of her spouse or divorce.
In July, the former prime minister challenged a trial court’s decision toaccept a petition seeking criminal proceedings against him and Bushra Bibifor allegedly cohabiting after their initial nikah, which was claimed tohave occurred without completing the mandatory iddat period for Bushra Bibi.
Judicial magistrate Qudratullah in Islamabad issued a detailed judgment onJuly 18, stating that the petition against the former premier regarding his’illegal’ marriage was admissible and ordered Imran and his wife to appearin court. Earlier, on July 14, Islamabad Additional District and SessionsJudge Muhammad Azam Khan remanded the case to the judicial magistrate,dismissing another civil court’s verdict that declared the plea challengingthe marriage’s legality as inadmissible.
Read Top Stories
Imran’s petition argues that the allegations in the private complaint donot constitute an offense under Section 496 of the Pakistan Penal Code(PPC), and continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the legalprocess. It further contends that the crucial question regarding theoffense under Section 496 PPC was not examined by the trial or revisionalcourt.
Additionally, it raises concerns about the revisional court’s decision toproceed without hearing the second party, which, according to the petition,compromises the entire proceedings.
