On 11th March 2010 Indira Gandhi got a custody order from the High Court of Ipoh for the 3 children against her Husband Padmanathan a/l Krishnan @ Muhammad Riduan Abdullah. Although the High Court ordered the Muslim Convert to hand over the last child who was only a years old he had refused to do so. The other 2 older Children have at all material times being living with the mother Indira Gandhi.
Subsequently Indira Gandhi obtained two orders 1)committal order against her ex husband requesting he be arrested and be placed in Tapah prison until he hands over the youngest child 2) A recovery order under the Child Act to locate the child and hand over to Indira Gandhi. The Ex-Husband was avoiding and unable to be located to be served with the court orders. Thus we obtained a court order requesting the Inspector General of Police(IGP) to serve the 2 orders on the Ex-Husband. These 2 orders were served on the IGP on 18-6-14.
The IGP than issued press statement to say that he was in a quandary as there was an another order from the Syariah Court and thus he can’t obey the Court Orders served on him on the 18-6-14.
Ipoh High Court disagreed with the IGP s views and duly granted a mandamus Indira an order against the IGP ordering his to serve the above 2 orders on the EX-Husband. On Appeal to the Court Of Appeal by a decision of 2-1 a majority of 2 Judges said the dispute between Indira Gandhi and her ex-Husband was a private matter thus the IGP need not serve the 2 orders. The minority Judgement of the Court of Appeal said there is no difference between a private family and a public matter.
Today the matter came up for Hearing before the Federal Court. 5 Judges heard the Appeal led by Justice Raus Sharif (President Court of Appeal). For Indira Gandhi- Mr. Ashto Paiva and M. Kula Segaran and Puan Susanah Atan from Attorney General Chambers appeared for the IGP.
We told the Federal Court once a Court orders the IGP to serve the above 2 documents he has no right to question the orders of the Court. He cannot say he don’t want to serve as being a public servant under the Police Act Section 20(3)(f) he must carry out the duties without fail.
The Attorney General Chambers are arguing that the reason for not serving is reasonable as there are two court orders.
Indira has not seen her daughter for over 6 years. The continuous drag and delay of this case hurt the child and the mother.
No one is above the law. If public servants start questioning Court orders it will mean the public servant can pick and choose which orders he want to act and serve.
Thus I urge the Federal Court will deliver a order to order to comply and serve the 2 orders without further delay.Court after hearing all for more than 3 hours has adjourned case for a further date to deliver its decision.