ISLAMABAD: The counsel for Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi on Thursday used a timeline of Imran Khan`s relationship with his exwife to argue that the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chief`s Banigala property was never meant for Jemima Goldsmith or their children, as he had claimed.

Mohammad Akram Sheikh made this argument before a three-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, which had taken up Mr Abbasi`s petition seeking the disqualification of Imran Khan and PTI secretarygeneralJahangirTareen.

Citing the affidavit of Rashid Ali Khan, Mr Khan`s friend who facilitated the sale of the property, the counsel said Ms Goldsmith had decided to relocate to London in 2002, long before the Banigala property was constructed.

Describing the mansion as a `Taj Mahal`, he said that Mr Khan`s ex-wife had decided to leave the country due to the constant harassment she faced at the hands of his opponents.

Mr Sheikh was quick to add that while every edifice built by someone for their loved one was a `Taj Mahal`, Mr Khan`s story that the property was meant for his wife and children, had the marriage remained intact, was a fabrication.

Justice Faisal Arab recalled that the land was purchased in her name, adding that every matrimonial relationship change d over time.

`Nobody knows what transpired between husband and wife,` the chief justice observed, adding that disagreements between a couple were common and it was inappropriate to discuss such domestic issues in court.Mr Sheikh, however, maintained that it was Imran Khan`s choice to hide behind Rashid Khan for the payment and Jemima for the registration of the property.

`The entire purpose was to avoid tax,` he argued, saying that had the money been sent in Mr Khan`s name, he would have had to pay taxes on it. Instead, it was remitted in Jemima`s name, he said.

The counsel highlighted Mr Khan`s nomination papers from 2002, where the Rs14.5 million loan from Jemima was never declared, despite the fact that the money was received by Mr Khan, and an advance payment of Rs6.7 million for the purchase of the Banigala property was mentioned.

But when Justice Arab asked whether a candidate for parliament could be disqualified for failing to mention a Rs2 million loan from his brother, the counsel responded: `When a father can be disqualified for not withdrawing the 10,000 dirhams promised to him by his son, why not?` This prompted Justice Umar Ata Bandial to observe that the court did not need to discuss the judgement under which former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was disqualified.

The counsel then cited the 2004 Iqbal Ahmed Turabi case, where he had gifted a property to his wife, Najma Turabi, but the Supreme Court had deprived her of the property and sentencedhertoEve yearsin prison.

But the court observed that the facts of that case were different from the current one, adding that the matter had already been tried by an accountability court.

Mr Sheikh also contended that it was an admitted fact that Mr Khan`s London flat was sold for 690,207 pounds, but he had only returned 562,415 pounds to Jemima, leaving Niazi Services Limited with 127,892 pounds.

The Supreme Court then adjourned proceedings for an indefinite period, with the direction that the case be resumed sometime in September.