Indira Gandhi case: PDRM, three others ordered to file defence statement

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 30 — The High Court today ordered the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) and three others to file their statement of defence over the suit filed by a kindergarten teacher, M. Indira Gandhi, against them for their failure to find and bring back her youngest daughter, who is abducted by her Muslim convert ex-husband, Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, 11 years ago.

Indira’s lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan, when contacted, said that all the defendants namely the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), PDRM, Home Ministry and the Government of Malaysia, were ordered to file their defence statements before or by Dec 2.

“The plaintiff (Indira), on the other hand, was ordered to file her reply to the defence statements before or by Dec 16. The next case management was set for Dec 30,” he said this after the case management before the High Court deputy registrar Idamasliza Maarof held via e-review today.

All defendants were represented by federal counsel Safiyyah Omar.

In her statement of claim, Indira claimed that the IGP, as the first defendant, had deliberately and negligently ignored the mandamus order from the Federal Court and failed to investigate or take appropriate action to return her daughter, Prasana Diksa, to her.

She claimed that the IGP in his press statement dated Jan 27, 2020, said that he knew the whereabouts of her ex-husband, formerly known as K. Patmanathan, 51, and was trying to get a “happy ending” for the plaintiff.

”Based on the statement, it clearly showed that the first defendant failed to arrest Muhammad Riduan (Patmanathan) and return Prasana to me despite knowing his whereabouts,” she said.

The woman also claimed that all the defendants had played their roles in making decisions or ordering the PDRM to execute the committal warrant against Muhammad Riduan as ordered by the Federal Court on April 29, 2016.

She claimed that the behaviour of all the defendants had directly caused her separation from her youngest daughter, who is now 12, to continue until today and that their behaviour had also caused Mohd Riduan to flee.

She is seeking RM100 million in general, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as a declaration that the first defendant had committed the tort of nonfeasance in public office, and the second, third and fourth defendants were also vicariously liable for the tort of nonfeasance committed by the first defendant.

Indira and Patmanathan were married on April 10, 1993, and had three children.

However, she said, on March 11, 2009, the man converted to Islam and changed the religion of their three children to Islam and that on Sept 29, 2009, he had also obtained the custody of the three children from Ipoh Syariah Court.

The plaintiff said she then filed an application for full custody of the children which was granted by Ipoh High Court on March 11, 2010.

However, Prasana was forcibly taken by Muhammad Riduan after the court ordered him to hand over the children to their mother.

The couple divorced on Aug 8, 2012. — Bernama