Indira Gandhi in court filing questions police failure to locate ex-hubby
If the police know the whereabouts of Muslim convert Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, then why have they yet to recover her daughter Prasana Diksa, asks his former wife M Indira Gandhi.
Through a court filing made on Dec 16, the kindergarten teacher raised this issue in relation to the police's efforts to abide by a court order and arrest Riduan, as well as recover the estranged couple's daughter Prasana.
Indira was responding to the police's Statement of Defence against her suit regarding their alleged refusal to locate and arrest Riduan as well as return Prasana to her. Prasana is alleged to be with Riduan...
If the police know the whereabouts of Muslim convert Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, then why have they yet to recover her daughter Prasana Diksa, asks his former wife M Indira Gandhi.
Through a court filing made on Dec 16, the kindergarten teacher raised this issue in relation to the police's efforts to abide by a court order and arrest Riduan, as well as recover the estranged couple's daughter Prasana.
Indira was responding to the police's Statement of Defence against her suit regarding their alleged refusal to locate and arrest Riduan as well as return Prasana to her. Prasana is alleged to be with Riduan.
In the Statement of Defence, the four defendants - the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), the Royal Malaysian Police, the Home Ministry and the government of Malaysia - claimed that the police are still undertaking every reasonable effort to track and arrest Riduan, as well as find Prasana.
Prasana was an infant when her father Riduan, previously named K Pathmanathan, reportedly took her away in 2009 after converting to Islam.
Riduan and Indira were later engaged in a tightly-watched interfaith custody battle after he unilaterally converted Prasana and their two other children to Islam.
Indira filed the lawsuit against the police on Oct 28 this year.
In the present Reply (court filing) sighted by Malaysiakini, Indira referred to the IGP's statement in January this year that he was in possession of information regarding Riduan's location, which contrasted with the police's failure to still locate him (Riduan).
"In the event the First Defendant (IGP) had knowledge of Patmanathan's (Riduan's name prior to conversion to Islam), the Defendants' allegations that the First Defendant and Second Defendant (police) had been taking all efforts to trace Patmanathan does not hold water.
"The First Defendant's statement herein is very confusing and strange.
"Even though the First Defendant had knowledge of Patmanathan's location, the First Defendant and Second Defendant still failed and/or refused to arrest Patmanathan and constantly made contradictory statements that Patmanathan's and Prasana's location was yet to be traced and that the Second Defendant was working towards it.
"This clearly shows that the First Defendant and Second Defendant had failed and/or refused to adhere to the said court orders," Indira said through the Reply.
Indira also took to task the IGP's reported wish to get a "happy ending" on the issue between her and Riduan, saying he should just focus on abiding by the court orders to track down her former husband and recover Prasana.
"The plaintiff emphasises herein that the First Defendant is tasked with adhering to the orders given by the High Court dated Sept 12, 2014, and the Federal Court order dated April 29, 2016, and that there is no need for any 'happy ending'.
"Any effort for a 'happy ending' is contradictory with the said court orders.
"The allegations made by the First Defendant that the welfare of Prasana will be prioritised is not relevant as the said court orders have set out the First Defendant's and Second Defendant's obligations clearly bind the First Defendant and Second Defendant," she said.
She was referring to a part of the defendants' Statement of Defence, which said that the IGP on Jan 28, 2020, had issued a statement that the police are making efforts to achieve a 'happy ending' for all parties involved.
On Jan 31 this year, IGP Abdul Hamid Bador reportedly claimed that he knows of the whereabouts of Riduan, and wished to try to achieve a 'happy ending in the issue, especially for Prasana.
Indira's legal team in January had reportedly censured the IGP over the 'happy ending' remark and claimed that there was no need for this in view of the court orders.
"The plaintiff emphasises herein that the first defendant is tasked with adhering to the orders given by the High Court dated Sept 12, 2014, and the Federal Court order dated April 29, 2016, and that there is no need to for any 'happy ending'.
"Any effort for a happy ending is contradictory with the said court orders," Indira said in her Reply.
In 2014, the High Court in Ipoh ordered the police to retrieve Prasana from her father. In 2016, the Federal Court ordered the IGP to arrest Riduan.
In 2018, the Federal Court unanimously ruled that unilateral conversions of children were unlawful as such decisions needed permission from both parents.
The court also issued an arrest warrant for Riduan.
According to Indira's lawsuit, the IGP allegedly failed to abide by two orders of the High Court in Ipoh, which were issued on May 30, 2014.
The first order was a committal order for Riduan to be jailed for failing to return Prasana to Indira.
The second one was a recovery order for the Royal Malaysian Police and the court bailiff to retrieve Prasana from Riduan and return her to Indira.
Indira claimed that the IGP has committed a tort of nonfeasance in public office by failing to arrest Riduan and recover Prasana.
The plaintiff is seeking declarations that the IGP has committed a tort of nonfeasance in public office and that the other three defendants are vicariously liable for the first defendant’s (IGP) tort of nonfeasance.
Indira is also seeking general, aggravated, and exemplary damages, interest, costs and any other order deemed fit by the court.
When contacted, Indira's counsel Rajesh Nagarajan said that the suit has been fixed for case management by the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, via e-review (online), on Jan 11 next year.
He added that the court has yet to fix a hearing date for the main suit.
