[ad_1]
KUALA LUMPUR: Ms. Indira Gandhi has filed a RM100,000 lawsuit against the police, the Ministry of the Interior and the Government for the alleged failure to locate and return her missing 12-year-old daughter, Prasana Diksa, to her.
The lawsuit was filed through Messrs. Raj & Sach in the Superior Court registry by electronic filing here on Wednesday (Oct 28).
Indira, 45, named the Inspector General of Police, the Royal Malaysian Police, the Ministry of the Interior and the Government as the first, second, third and fourth defendants, respectively.
In the declaration of the claim, Indira said that the IGP had failed and refused to adhere to an internment order and a recovery order that involved her disappeared son.
Both orders, he said, were obtained from the Ipoh Superior Court on May 30, 2014.
The arrest warrant stated that her 51-year-old ex-husband Muhammad Riduan Abdullah was to be sent to prison until Prasana was handed over to him, while the recovery order stated that the court bailiff and the police were to search, recover and return the girl to Indira.
Indira affirmed that the IGP had not complied with both orders on the basis that the latter faced two conflicting orders, namely, an order from the Superior Court of Perak Syariah that granted custody of the children to Riduan and an order from the Superior Court of Ipoh that granted the custody to Indira.
On April 29, 2016, he said that the Federal Court ruled that Riduan’s arrest warrant must be executed and that the police have the proper authority to do so.
The Supreme Court also upheld the High Court’s decision that a mandamus order could be directed towards the IGP to compel it to order the execution of the order.
Indira stated that the IGP made a statement to the media on January 27 in which it alleged that the latter was “aware” of Riduan’s location and was working on “a happy ending” for her.
“The statement of the first defendant (IGP) made it clear that the first defendant had not proceeded to arrest Riduan and hand over Prasana to the plaintiff despite knowing the location.
“To date, due to the inaction, failure and omission of the first defendant, Prasana has not been recovered from Riduan and returned to the plaintiff,” it said in the statement.
Indira affirmed that the IGP had committed an offense of non-fulfillment in a public position by not enforcing the orders.
“The second, third and fourth defendants are indirectly responsible for the offense of the first defendant.
“They have not ensured that the first defendant has acted diligently to carry out the orders,” he said.
Indira affirmed that the conduct of the accused had caused directly or indirectly and extended the separation between her and her son and allowed Riduan to escape.
He claimed to have suffered pain and anxiety as a result of constant concern for Prasana’s safety and well-being.
Indira seeks general, aggravated and exemplary damages, interests, costs and other reparations that the court deems appropriate.
When contacted, Indra’s attorney, Rajesh Nagarajan, said his client would seek RM100,000 in damages.
Indira and Riduan, or their birth name K. Patmanathan, were married on April 10, 1993. They have three children, P. Tevi Darsiny, 23; P. Karan Dinish, 22 years old and Prasana.
On March 11, 2009, Riduan converted to Islam and unilaterally converted the children to Islam and on September 29, 2009, he obtained a custody order for the children from the Syariah High Court in Perak.
It was reported that they took Prasana the same year.
Indira then presented a request for custody in the Superior Civil Court of Ipoh, which was granted on March 11, 2010.
The couple divorced in August 2012.
In January 2018, the Federal Court annulled the unilateral conversion of the children.
[ad_2]
