Malaysiakini published a telephone and face-to-face interview with R Subashini, the wife of the convert who also converted their eldest son and planned to convert the second son. She denies reports about her converting, saying that someone pretended to be her and called Malaysiakini via handphone and also sent email – both which belong to her!

Anyway, if she converts for the sake of the children, no one can stop it. Who wants to be separated from their kids? However, it will be a big insult for Islam for creating a situation that forces a mother to convert.

By the way, I’m curious that Saravanan still keeps his name which signifies Lord Muruga. Is it not heresy?

The rest of the interview below:

Following a widely-publicised and emotionally-charged legal battle which had stretched for two years, R Subashini has finally decided to break her silence albeit with a little mystery thrown into the concoction.

The Hindu wife of a Muslim convert spoke to Malaysiakini yesterday, her first interview with the media since going to court over her marriage and custody of her children.

For safety reasons, Subashini had kept a low profile despite her highly publicised case as issues pertaining to religion are considered controversial and sensitive in this country.

The courtroom drama started when her husband T Saravanan, a businessman, converted to Islam in May 2006 along with their eldest son, Dharvin Joshua, aged 5.

Saravanan, who assumed the name Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah, then launched proceedings in the Syariah Court for a divorce as well as custody of their second son, Sharvin, 3.

Subashini fought her case right up to the land’s highest court late last year.

Her case was however thrown out on technical grounds, despite having secured a minor victory in the landmark judgment.

Her meeting with Malaysiakini yesterday came amid mysterious phone calls and an email from a woman who had identified herself as ‘Subashini’.

But the ‘real’ Subashini denied making calls or sent out an email on the matter.

In a telephone conversation with Malaysiakini on Monday, the ‘other’ Subashini revealed that she had patched up with her husband and could now visit her eldest son on a regular basis.

She also stated that she intended to convert to Islam soon so that the family could be together once again, adding that she would instruct her lawyers to withdraw all of her court actions.

The telephone conversation was later followed by an email, furnishing more details.

In her email, the ‘other’ Subashini said she had been in contact with her husband five months ago and was “happy at the moment” that she could be with her two sons and her husband.

“Can anybody be in my shoes and describe how happy I am? Or at least tell me, can money or fame bring you happiness?

“I carried both my sons for nine months and how can I just let anyone take away my babies from me? They are the only priceless wealth that I have and will have forever.

“My prayers and support from everyone have showed me a result but it depends how some individuals accept this but as for me, I’m honest and clear with my decision.

“I have built back my palace and I wouldn’t want it to be demolished,” read the email.

However, when met at her lawyer K Shanmuga’s office in Kuala Lumpur yesterday, the ‘real’ Subashini denied that she had telephoned Malaysiakini or sent the email.

But there was another twist.

The ‘real’ Subashini confirmed that the phone number and email address used by the ‘other’ Subashini were indeed hers.

The phone number was a newly registered mobile number but she had stopped using the email account, which was registered under her second son’s name.

“This email was definitely not from me,” responded Subashini when shown a copy of the message.

Clad in a pink baju kurung (Malay traditional attire) and wearing a red pottu (Hindu marking) on her forehead, the 30-year-old company secretary was in the dark as to who would have impersonated her.

“I don’t have (Malaysiakini’s) number, I don’t know who to contact, I don’t have Malaysiakini’s email address.

“I don’t know who is using my name. I don’t know who (did it), I don’t want to point (fingers) at anyone,” she said.

At the brief meeting, Subashini – who declined to be photograped – also refused to speak on the record over the current status of her marriage and her children.

“Not at the moment,” she replied with a smile when asked about this.

Later, her lawyer Shanmuga (left) said he had not received any instruction from his client to withdraw the legal actions.

“The Shah Alam High Court is scheduled to hear (Subashini’s) application for leave to quash the conversion of (eldest son) Dharvin on Aug 21,” said the lawyer.

“The Attorney-General’s Chambers is objecting to the application, stating that the applicant has to go to a syariah court,” he added.

The matter would be heard before judicial commissioner Mariana Yahya.

To another question, the lawyer said he had not received any instruction from Subashini to file a fresh application for divorce in the civil court after a similar application was ruled “premature and invalid” by the Federal Court in its landmark ruling last year.

At the time, the court rejected Subashini’s divorce petition – which sought maintenance and custody of her children – on technical grounds over the date of her petition which was within three months of her husband’s conversion date.

According to the law, the petition should be filed three months after the conversion date but Subashini’s application was filed about two weeks before the three-month period expired. The divorce petition was thus deemed null and void.

Nevertheless, she could file a fresh petition to seek the divorce.

In the same judgment, Subashini secured a minor victory as the Federal Court ruled that the syariah courts cannot dissolve a civil marriage.

The highest court ruled, in a 2-1 decision, that Saravanan could seek remedies in the syariah courts but cannot compel Subashini to do the same because she was a non-Muslim.

However, the court did not make clear the issue concerning the custody of the children as it also ruled that both the husband and wife could initiate custody proceedings in their respective jurisdictions.