Indira Gandhi’s case, and other cases that dealt with identical problems, remind us of the adage: pounds of pounds of law, but not an ounce of justice.

True, all the judgments in the cases where non-Muslim parents, largely mothers, have been denied any legal remedy reveal immense erudition in expounding the law - but do not help to solve the problems the non-Muslim parents are facing.

Why should a biological mother, or for that matter a biological father, be deprived of the company of their children in the name of religion?

For once, could all those who are concerned with the custody issues involving newly-converted Muslims and non-Muslims realise that this is purely a family matter; that religion is being brought in as a result of the former non-Muslim spouse who had converted to Islam to bolster his or her position?

We cannot ignore the suspicion that is gaining currency, and that is, by denying the affected spouse civil judicial remedy but advising him or her to go to the syariah court is in fact a coercion on the non-converted spouse to convert and seek the remedy in the syariah court.

While it is correct that the state-orientated syariah courts and religious departments have the right to deal with Islamic laws regulating the personal affairs of Muslims within their respective states, the power to regulate the personal laws of non-Muslims vests with the Federal Government.

Therefore, insofar as the marriage and dissolution of the marriage of non-Muslims are concerned, the relevant law is the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, which is a federal legislation. Therefore, it will be prudent to look at the dissolution of the non-Islamic marriage within the compass of this federal Law Reform Act 1976.

It is not a herculean task to amend Section 51 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, and make it plain that the spouse converting to Islam shall not do anything to change the religion of the children of the marriage under the age of 18 unilaterally, until the issue of custody has been determined by the High Court.

In addition, Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution can also be amended to remove the current ambiguity in it and state clearly that where the matter has an Islamic ingredient and the parties are Muslims, then, the High Court shall have no jurisdiction.

What we are looking for is a solution, not the prolongation of an unrewarding conflict that traumatises every Malaysian. The clash of jurisdiction is judge-made and it can be averted, provided mature common sense prevails and these matters are not treated as a challenge to Islam. What we need is a humanitarian approach.