Indira proposes 'interfaith family court' to resolve cases like hers

Summary

• Following years of legal brawls, M Indira Gandhi suggests that it is high time the government considers enacting a family court to settle interfaith family disputes.

• She claims that such a platform would help families navigate the murky waters, where legal lines can easily become blurred, with better harmony.

Hindu mother M Indira Gandhi’s long struggle to be reunited with her daughter lays bare the deep structural faults in Malaysia’s handling of interfaith family disputes.

Her case showed how, when a marriage breaks down across religious lines, the civil courts, syariah courts, and enforcement agencies can pull in different directions, leaving parents trapped in legal limbo and children unprotected.

Despite repeated civil court orders in Indira’s favour, and the Federal Court’s unequivocal rulings on custody and unilateral conversion, enforcement in Indira’s case has been abjectly absent.

Six inspectors-general of police (IGPs) have come and gone, yet none have succeeded in locating her youngest daughter, Prasana Diksa, or ensuring the orders are carried out.

The family court system, which is meant to safeguard the rights of parents and children, becomes effectively powerless when its decisions collide with competing religious jurisdictions and political sensitivities.

Having endured exhausting and time-consuming legal battles to seek justice, Indira has proposed an interfaith family court to resolve cases like hers.

“Maybe we should have a family court where families can settle matters equitably in court.

“So that even before my ex (husband) converted, he could resolve the matter before he converted,” she said in an interview with Malaysiakini.

Indira claimed that such a procedure could help minimise the contention within interfaith families, helping them navigate the grey areas properly when a spouse decides to convert to another religion.

She also noted that when such an issue arises, few regulations could protect minorities from being deprived of what’s theirs.

“For me, I don’t blame people. I don’t blame the justice system. We have won justice equally. I have won in my favour, and it was a landmark (case).

“But when issues like these come up, we are more suppressed, being a minority,” the kindergarten teacher said.

Two laws and many conflicts

Malaysia’s bifurcated family law framework, comprising separate civil and syariah jurisdictions, is a structural source of conflict in interfaith family disputes.

Civil family courts preside over non-Muslim marriages, while syariah courts handle matters involving Muslims, and neither has authority over the other.

When a marriage breaks down across religious lines, especially when one spouse converts to Islam, both courts may issue parallel and sometimes contradictory orders on custody, conversion, and maintenance.

This jurisdictional clash leaves enforcement agencies, particularly the police, uncertain about which order to act upon, resulting in delays or outright non-enforcement.

The absence of a coherent mechanism to reconcile these jurisdictions is what Indira hopes can be addressed through her suggestion for an interfaith family court.

“Our country should be a little bit more alert to issues like this, where minorities are given little privilege,” she added.

Legal battle for daughter

Indira’s legal battle started in 2009, when she turned to the courts after her Muslim convert ex-husband unilaterally converted their three children to Islam.

Riduan Abdullah, who is on the run from authorities, obtained an interim custody order from the Perak Syariah Court, followed by permanent custody of the children from the Syariah Court later that year.

Turning to the civil courts to overturn her children’s unilateral conversion and secure their custody, Indira won a landmark case, where the Ipoh High Court ruled in her favour and granted her full custody of all her three children.

Despite this and other judicial decisions, Riduan - formerly known as K Pathmanathan - never returned Prasana to Indira.

In another landmark decision, the Ipoh High Court in 2013 overturned the conversion of the three children, citing that the consent of both parents is needed for the conversion of a child to Islam.

The following year, the Ipoh court also voided the Syariah Court’s custody order to Riduan on the basis that it had overstepped its jurisdiction.

Riduan was given a week to bring Prasana to Indira, or face a jail term. He defied the order, failing to carry it out by the deadline at noon on June 6, 2014.

Despite the uphill legal feud, Indira again stressed that her actions never stemmed from religious or racial motivations, but came from the yearning of a mother who had lost her child.

March for justice

Indira called upon the public to join her march on Nov 22, where she will be pushing Prasana’s stroller alongside her old toys towards the Bukit Aman police headquarters, in a final plea to the nation’s conscience as she grieves for her daughter.

“I hope we will have a huge crowd regardless of race, status, or religion.

“This is my longing to see my child. I know there are a lot of single parents who are going through the same thing. So, the only hope is, we can alert people by (creating) awareness for the public authorities to have sympathy for people like us,” she said.

The rally will depart from the Sogo shopping complex and conclude at Bukit Aman, where Indira will present the police with Prasana’s teddy bear, a poignant reminder of the many broken promises and years of delayed justice.

Prasana's SPM year: Milestone marked by silence, 16-year separation

Indira invites Tengku Maimun to Nov 22 march 'as symbol of truth'

COMMENT | Will Indira ever see justice in this country?

Ex-law minister to join Indira's 'teddy bear' protest