A local court in Islamabad has recently summoned former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on September 25 in a case related to his alleged ‘un-Islamic’ marriage with Bushra Bibi.
Civil Judge Qudratullah in an order issued to the Superintendent Attock Jail directed the latter to ensure that Imran Khan is presented before the court.
PTI chairman Imran Khan has been imprisoned in jail after being convicted in the Toshakhana case.
He was arrested from his Zaman Park residence in Lahore on August 5. During the hearing, the judge will examine the arguments of the PTI chairman’s lawyer challenging the court’s jurisdiction in hearing the stated case.
The judge asked Imran Khan’s counsel to prepare arguments after he sought time from the court.
The report stated, Imran Khan is facing charges of allegedly getting married to his 3rd wife during the time of her Iddat. Iddat is an Islamic terminology that is considered to be a specified time period of waiting for a woman before marrying someone else after getting divorced or after her husband’s death.
Previously in July, the PTI chairman challenged a decision of trial court to accept a petition seeking criminal proceedings against him and his wife for cohabiting after their first nikah that allegedly took place during her Iddat period.
On July 18, a judicial magistrate in Islamabad, Qudratullah issued a 9-page detailed judgement stating that the petition filed against Imran Khan related to his ‘illegal’ marriage was admissible. The judge also directed Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi to appear in his court.
On July 14, Islamabad Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Azam Khan sent the case to the judicial magistrate. He also dismissed another decision to civil court declaring the plea challenging the legality of the marriage inadmissible.
In his petition, the former Pakistan PM stated that the allegations mentioned in the private complaint don’t constitute an offence within the ambit of Section 496 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).
It further stated, “Thus continuation of the trial would amount to the abuse of the process of law.”
