PM wrong about child custody cases, say lawyers and retired judge

By admin-s On Jun 18, 2014

(TMI) – Until the two ex-husbands return the children, there is no way the cases can go any further, let alone to the Federal Court.

An apex court’s decision has scuttled the prime minister’s contention that the two bitter custody battles between Muslim and non-Muslim spouses can be settled amicably at the Federal Court, say lawyers and a retired judge.

Short of saying Datuk Seri Najib Razak does not know what he is talking about, the lawyers and the retired judge said the cases involving clerk S. Deepa and kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi, cannot proceed any further from the High court, until their former husbands return the children to the mothers.

They pointed out that Deepa and Indira’s former husbands, who had converted to Islam, had clearly disobeyed High court orders by not returning the children to the mothers.

Until the two ex-husbands return the children, there is no way the cases can go any further, let alone to the Federal Court, they said.

Deepa’s former husband Izwan Abdullah and Indira’ former spouse Muhammad Ridzuan Abdullah had filed appeals in the Court of Appeal against the High court rulings giving the mothers custody. But both Izwan and Ridzuan and still holding on to their children.

Lawyers said a legal precedent had been set when the Federal Court in 2010 refused to hear a leave to appeal application in a similar interfaith conversion case.

A five-man bench chaired by the then chief justice Tun Zaki Azmi in 2010 rejected S. Shamala’s application as she was in contempt of court following action taken against her by her husband.

A High Court in 2002 had granted Shamala custody of her children on condition her Muslim convert husband Dr Muhammad Ridwan Mogarajah (Jeyaganesh C. Mogarajah), had access to his two children and that she did not bring up the children in the Hindu faith.

The husband had earlier unilaterally converted the children to Islam.

Shamala, however, left the country with the children in 2004 but filed her court papers for lawyers to carry out her battle in her absence.

The Court of Appeal referred the matter to the Federal Court as this involved a constitutional issue. The Federal Court, however, threw out Shamala’s leave application as she had defied the High Court order by taking her children away.

The judge and the lawyers said Shamala’s case would very likely bind Izwan and Ridzuan who had violated High Court orders granting custody of their children to their ex-wives.