KUALA LUMPUR (Feb 5): Kindergarten teacher M Indira Gandhi testified at the High Court here on Monday regarding her 15-year predicament over police failure to locate her youngest child Prasana Diksa, who was taken away by her former husband K Pathmanathan @ Muhammad Riduan Abdullah in 2009.
Indira Gandhi, 49, said her former husband had converted to Islam in March 2009 and later that year, he managed to obtain a Syariah Court order that awarded him guardianship over their three children.
She said the children were then unilaterally converted to Islam but she had challenged it by filing an application at the civil court to regain custody of her three children and was successful in gaining an Ipoh High Court order in March 2010.
However, Pathmanathan had taken Prasana Diksa away from Indira Gandhi’s care when the girl turned two. (Her two other children were returned to her in 2010.)
Indira Gandhi said she obtained an Ipoh High Court order on May 30, 2014, to jail Pathmanathan for contempt of court for not surrendering Prasana Diksa to her, and the court had also ordered that a search for Prasana Diksa be conducted to return the child to Indira Gandhi’s custody.
Indira Gandhi said the then-inspector general of police (IGP) did not comply with the civil court's order, citing there were conflicting jurisdictions with the Syariah High Court, and this prompted her to file an application at the Civil High Court to compel the police to look for her daughter.
Indira Gandhi stated that the case proceeded up to the Federal Court, where the apex court had ruled on April 29, 2016, that Pathmanathan should be arrested and a warrant of committal was then issued. The apex court then directed the IGP to abide by the apex court’s order to arrest Indira Gandhi’s former husband.
The court also overturned the unilateral conversion of her two other children and ruled that conversion of children below 18 years old must have the consent of both parents.
“However, till today, my former husband has yet to be arrested, nor has Prasana Diksa [been] brought back to me,” she said.
The 49-year-old told the court that since there were no developments, she had appointed legal firm Messrs Raj & Sach to know the status of the police in complying with the order, wherein the firm had directed the Ipoh High Court to conduct judicial monitoring.
“The law firm wrote (to the Ipoh High Court) in November 2020, but there was no feedback over the judicial monitoring. By December 2020, I received a letter from the Ipoh High Court, directing the police to restore the judicial monitoring exercise that required the police to file an affidavit every three months (to update the status of their search for Pathmanathan and Prasana Diksa).
“However, till today, Pathmanathan has not been arrested, nor has Prasana Diksa been found,” the mother said.
Former IGP: All efforts made
Indira Gandhi has named the IGP, the police, the home ministry, and the government as respondents in the suit, over their failure to arrest her former husband and retrieve Prasana Diksa.
Former IGP Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Bador testified that the police under his care then had done all they could to locate Pathmanathan.
He, however, agreed to questions from Indira Gandhi’s lawyers Rajesh Nagarajan and Sachpreetraj Singh that the police and his predecessor were late in issuing a warrant of arrest eight months after the Federal Court’s decision, and also in filing a complaint with the Interpol.
“I admit that eight months was too late,” said Abdul Hamid, who was IGP from 2019 to 2021.
Abdul Hamid added that he tried within his powers to arrest Pathmanathan, as the police gained information that Pathmanathan was either still in Perak or in Kelantan.
However, Abdul Hamid said that from a police check with the Immigrations Department, they got to know that Pathmanathan had left the country and was believed to be in southern Thailand.
The former IGP said he had instructed the police to search for, and also utilise connections with the Thai police to locate Pathmanathan.
“We received ‘hot’ information of Pathmanathan’s sighting in southern Thailand but to no avail,” he said, adding that a special task force was formed to locate Pathmanathan.
The former IGP also admitted when queried by Indira Gandhi’s lawyers that the police had not been updating the Ipoh High Court in relation to the judicial monitoring exercise.
Abdul Hamid said he wanted to see a happy ending with the saga, as he understood the strains that Indira Gandhi had undergone from the loss of her daughter.
“That was why I directed the police to look for Pathmanathan or Prasana (Diksa),” he said.
When asked by Indira Gandhi’s lawyers for evidence of such a directive made, the former IGP said he could not provide any but reiterated that he had specifically given such instructions (to the police under him).
Meanwhile, Assistant Superintendent Yap Siew Cheng, the present investigating officer for the case, said she had checked with the Kelantan Employees Provident Fund branch on Pathmanathan’s whereabouts but found out that he was no longer in Kelantan. Yap had also checked with Bank Negara Malaysia and with other agencies in a bid to locate him (but to no avail).
Yap added that she had also sought Interpol’s help in 2020.
She denied suggestions made by Indira Gandhi’s lawyers that the police were shoddy in their investigations.
The police and the government were represented by senior federal counsel Andi Razali Jaya A Dadi.
With these testimonies, both plaintiff and defence closed their cases.
Following this, Judicial Commissioner Datuk Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Raja Mohzan fixed for both parties to conduct oral submissions of their cases on May 7.