A woman who had been forcibly separated from her Hindu husband and 18-month-old baby girl on the grounds of her religion has been released from custody in an Islamic rehabilitation camp yesterday.

However, the woman - Revathi Masoosai, according to her husband V Suresh, or Siti Fatimah, according to her parents and religious authorities - is prohibited from staying with her husband.

She had been held there for six months.

The court also ruled that she must stay with her Muslim parents, along with her child. The baby has been looked after by Revathi's parents since she was sent to the rehabilitation camp in January.

Revathi was also told that she could not convert out of Islam.

Malaysiakini invited several religious and human rights groups to comment on the verdict:

N Siva Subramaniam, Suhakam commissioner

We haven't got the full text of the verdict. We have to study the verdict first. However, we will be meeting on Monday and this issue will surely be discussed by the commission.

A Vaithilingam, president of Malaysia Hindu Sangam

The verdict of release is welcome but her freedom to live where she wants to has been infringed upon. No one should curb her freedom to live wherever she wants to. Laying conditions on where she should live is infringing on her liberty. She is an adult, she should be able to live somewhere close to her husband at least, to be near her children. This type of imposition is unfair. My appeal to the court is not to deprive her of her liberties as for where she should live, at least they should not restrict her to living with her parents.

Meera Samanther, Women's Action Organisation (WAO) president

We are happy and relieved to hear of Revathi's release, but in the first place we would like to stress that Revathi should never have been sent into the rehabilitation centre as she has declared that she does not profess the faith of Islam and the Syariah Courts have no jurisdiction over her.

Her right to profess her faith of choice has been violated as enshrined in Article 11 of the Federal Constitution.

We question the timing of the release i.e. just before the habeas corpus application. We are disappointed that the civil courts were not willing to hear the habeas corpus application as the judiciary has stated that it has rendered the case academic.

However, we beg to disagree that such an important issue should have been heard as it would determine as to whether a person who no longer professes Islam can be detained at a rehabilitation centre and separated from her family for such an extended period of time against her will. This tantamount to wrongful confinement.

We are also concerned as to whether Revathi had access and had adequate legal representation of the lawyer of her choice in the beginning, as being in the rehabilitation centre is akin to being imprisoned."