ISLAMABAD: In response to Bushra Bibi, the wife of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) postponed ruling on her appeal against the argument of her ex-husband on Monday.
Khan and Bushra’s marriage was contested by Khawar Maneka, Khan’s ex-husband, in a district and sessions court in Islamabad last month.
Interestingly, Muhamad Hanif, the petitioner, withdrew a similar suit challenging the ex-PTI chief’s nikah “due to technical reasons” the day before his plea was filed.
Bushra had earlier in the day moved the high court. The same day, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri of the IHC convened to hear the plea, with Bushra’s attorney Salman Akram Raja in attendance.
Raja told the court during the hearing that accusations had been made by his client’s ex-husband that Bushra married Khan when she was in iddat, a period of seclusion following a husband’s death or divorce, and that she had not shown high moral character even during their marriage.
The attorney went on to say that Bushra married the former prime minister on January 1, 2018, during iddat, after being divorced from her previous husband on November 14, 2017. He denied Maneka’s allegations and stated that they had split up in April 2017.
The time between a divorce and marriage is 48 days, even if Maenka’s claim is validated. He contended that even in this situation, the Supreme Court Shariat Appellate Bench has decided that the iddat time may be finished in 39 days.
According to Raja, Maneka also asserted in his plea that his spouse had an extramarital affair. Why was the ex-husband bringing up this matter six years after their divorce ended? he pondered.
“I don’t even want to mention the derogatory remarks Khawar Maneka made about his ex-wife in his lawsuit. In addition, he said that Bushra had a relationship with the PTI founder before their marriage, but he omitted to say whether or not he saw their relationships firsthand.
Raja continued by saying that Maneka’s housekeeper also stated that he witnessed Bushra and Khan having multiple affairs and told him about it.
This testimony, however, is inadmissible since the law requires the testimony of two men in cases involving fornication.
Since the trial court was moving toward an indictment, he pleaded with the judge to grant a stay of the proceedings. The court then declared that before making a decision, it would hear the opposing argument. After that, the hearing was postponed until January 17.
