THIS is with reference to the editorial `Iddat ruling (Feb 6), which, to me, was a highly biased take on the issue. As uderstood, domestic violence, marital disputes, fraudulent marriages, alimony, divorce, child custody and a myriad of such issues are seem to be frequently and extensively debated and contested in courts of law and other forums provided by the government. They at times are reported through media and attract public interest as well. Nobody seems to have an issue with that. Nobody raises a voice in such cases. Why? Apparently, one has to be a `celebrity` to evoke such feelings of `right` and `wrong`.

Having a soft corner for politicians` misdoings in their private lives is not entirely a bad idea, but turning a blind eye to the ugly examples of socially and morally repugnant practices at the grassroots level in society is surely not a good idea at all. More importantly, such examples must not be glorified the way the said editorial did.

Ifalocusstandiexists and thereis an aggrieved party or complainant, the law, as practised in the land, must be allowed to take its due course. The current case fitted the bill, and, that being so, is it fair to suggest that a `celebrity`should have been treated differently than the common man? In essence,everyoneisentitled tobe critical of judicial verdicts, but nobody can take away an aggrieved person`s right to approach a court of law for the redressalofgrievances.Period.

W.U. Siddiqi Karachi