Understanding the Iddat Case: How It will Define the Fate of Women Rights in Pakistan
- The controversy surrounding Mr. Imran Khan and the Iddat case hinges on the timing of his marriage to Bushra Bibi, challenging legal interpretations under the Muslim Family Law Ordinance (MFLO) of 1961.
- Critics question whether Mr. Khan's marriage violated the 90-day iddat period, prompting debate over the rights of ex-husbands and implications for women's autonomy in Pakistani society.
- This case underscores broader issues of gender inequality and the urgent need for legal reforms to protect women's rights and autonomy in Pakistan.
The recent controversy involving the former Prime Minister, Mr. Imran Khan, revolves around the Iddat case filed by Mr. Khawar Farid Maneka, the ex husand of Bushra Bibi. This case has sparked a nationwide debate for good reason. It comprises complex intersections between traditional practices and modern legal interpretations. To understand the varying opinions, it’s essential to break down the initial sessions court judgment and delve into the relevant sections of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance (MFLO) of 1961.
The MFLO was introduced during a time of significant social change in Pakistan, amid a burgeoning women’s movement. A commission was set up in 1955, which comprised both modernists and traditionalists. This commission was tasked with addressing various issues, including divorce procedures. Not surprisingly, the commission’s report faced opposition from religious authorities. To move forward, the commission distributed questionnaires among the public, and the answers received leaned towards modernism. Consequently, so did the commission’s proposals. In spite of this, the eventual ordinance aimed to create a balanced legal framework that addressed the needs of all social classes and genders. Contrary to some beliefs, the MFLO is not biased in favor of women. Instead, it seeks to protect those who are wronged, with its application dependent on the specifics of each case.
However, this is not always true. A section of the MFLO is often viewed as beneficial for women. It pertains to Talaq (divorce) and is primarily designed to prevent hasty dissolution of marriages. The section is particularly noteworthy as it requires a conscious and willful pronouncement of Talaq with the intention to end the marriage. As per Section 7(3) of the MFLO, Talaq is considered effective after the completion of the 90-day or iddat period.
The controversy arises around the interpretation of the iddat period. As stated above, the law specifies a 90-day period. This raises questions about the legitimacy of marriages solemnized before the conclusion of this period. The question has been brought to light in the specific case of former PM Khan and his wife, who solemnized their nikah before the completion of 90 days. The ex-husband, Mr. Maneka, feels wronged that he was not given an opportunity for reconciliation with his ex-wife; a right given under the law and Islam. Thus, critics are questioning whether this constitutes a fraudulent marriage under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).
This situation underscores the pervasive nature of gender inequality. Women are not merely pawns in political games. This case warrants championing women’s rights not just in rhetoric but in actionable policies that dismantle patriarchal norms.
In the landmark case of Allah Dad v. Mukhtar (1992 SCMR 1273), the Court recognized a minimum iddat period of 39 days, suggesting that marriages contracted during this time are irregular but not void. The judgment highlighted that a 90-day iddat period is not universally applicable in Islam, applying instead to women who have ceased menstruating due to age or have not yet started menstruating. The Allah Dad case established that a shorter iddat period of 39 days is possible, during which a woman can have three menstruations with two intervening periods of purity (Tuhr).
However, the precedent set by the Allah Dad case has been said to be a mere presumption that can be rebutted in the case filed by Mr. Maneka. This ruling has led to further debates about the role of ex-husbands in determining the completion of an ex-wife’s menstrual period, raising significant concerns in Pakistan’s deeply patriarchal society. The case has led to women around the country questioning why an ex-husband’s judgment is considered valid in such personal matters. The issue resonates with many. This case does not just affect one woman; it has negative connotations for society. It is reminiscent of the former PM Khan’s controversial and vile statement that “men are not robots” in response to the rising number of rape cases.
These peculiarities further raise questions regarding why men are permitted to make such statements and decisions on behalf of women. The case filed by Mr. Maneka gains more complexity when considering the prolonged period it took for him to realize that he had been wronged. This situation underscores the pervasive nature of gender inequality. Women are not merely pawns in political games. This case warrants championing women’s rights not just in rhetoric but in actionable policies that dismantle patriarchal norms.
Adding to the controversy of the Iddat case, Bushra Bibi was recently acquitted by the court. No evidence of fornication or fraudulent marriage was found to frame a charge under the PPC. Despite this, Mr. Maneka has yet again filed an appeal, questioning why Bushra Bibi was allowed to go free. This move has sparked further debate on the autonomy and rights of women.
Every day the media is filled with news of women being wronged. For instance, in parallel to this case, we see the tragic news of Sania Zehra. It is extremely heartbreaking to hear how a young woman was killed by her husband. Her only crime: marriage. These cases underscore the broader struggle for women and highlight the urgent need for reform and stronger protections for women in Pakistan. As these debates continue, it remains important to keep questioning and refining the legal interpretations that shape the lives of millions.
