KARACHI, Feb 11: The Sindh High Court on Wednesday ordered the production of Shaista Almani and Balkh Sher Mahar, the man who is said to have divorced her under pressure after their free- will marriage, on Feb 26.

Advocate-General Anwar Mansoor Khan, assisted by Additional AG Sarwar Khan, appeared for the respondent provincial government and submitted that all state authorities from the highest to the lowest level had taken notice of the matter and Shaista and her family were being provided full protection.

She was under medical treatment in stringent security. The SHC Sukkur bench had ordered her treatment and the new bench might well have called for a medical report before ordering her production.

As for Mr Mahar, the AG said he was not in official custody or protection and he had no knowledge of his whereabouts. Besides, he said, none of the petitioners in the three petitions before the court had sought his production.

A division bench comprising Justices Anwar Zaheer Jamali and S. Ali Aslam Jafri, which is seized of the writ petitions moved by Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Aurat Foundation and Women's Action Forum, observed that Balkh's production had been sought by one of the petitioners.

Shaista was already being provided with treatment under court orders. It asked the AG to ascertain Balkh's whereabouts and ensure his presence on Feb 26.

The AG submitted that the issues relating to Shaista's marriage had been blown out of proportion by the media and certain non- governmental organizations.

The matter was sub judice and the sensational publicity being given to the case in a section of the press was no service to society. He endorsed AAG Sarwar Khan's plea for curbs on the publication of press reports.

Appearing for the petitioners and Ms Almani, Advocates Iqbal Haider, Khwaja Naveed Ahmad and Sukkur-based Shafqat Shah Masoomi submitted that Balkh's presence was necessary for a proper adjudication of the questions involved in the case.

There was no undue publicity and the matter was serious enough to be covered by the press extensively. Advocate Ahmad said Shaista could not move about freely and was putting up in a small quarter. Advocate Haider stated that she was not allowed to see him in his law office.

The lawyers said the petitions involved questions of vital importance to the social fabric and the legal system. They challenge dispensation of arbitrary punishments in the name of tribal justice.

The AG said Shaista's movements were curbed in the interest of her safety and security. The government could not afford to hire a bungalow for her, and her security and treatment were the main factors in choosing an accommodation for her in police quarters.

Advocate Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, meanwhile, submitted a statement that he received a telephonic message from Himat Ali Almani, Shaista's father and a respondent in the petition, saying that he was unable to move freely and appear in court because of police surveillance.

The respondent has asked him (the lawyer) to seek an order for his production. Mr Jatoi undertook to represent him if he was brought from Jamshoro and signed a power of attorney or vakalatnama on his production in the court.