| 
Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email Phew, if this guys are taken seriously, more migration can be expected. Secondly, opinion of Islam will be further damaged. This is worse than Hindraf. If these kind of extermists win, then I shudder to think the fate of non-muslims in this country. What will MCCBCHST say? » Read more: Muslim group threatens unity
| Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email After the decision was handed down, Subashini said she was disappointed with the judgement., saying she wished the judges had looked into her rights as a mother.
“It is unfair to treat me like this. I gave birth to our children and I have a right to make a decision about my children, as a mother,” she said in a phone interview with theSun.
“How can they say my estranged husband has the right to convert our second child? Does this mean I will lose my second son as well?” she added.
Subashini has not met her first son, Dharvin Joshua, for the past two years since her husband, Saravanan, converted the boy.
She said Saravanan, was only willing to grant her access to Dharvin in exchange for access to their youngest child, Sharvin.
Subashini said she was willing to give up not seeing Dharvin for fear that Saravanan would convert their second child as well.
“If that happens, then I am afraid that both my kids will be taken away from me, and I will have no one,” she said.
Subashini said it was unfair that her newly-converted husband seems to have been granted more rights over her as a mother.
“Where is my right, as a mother?” she asked, adding that she was still discussing her next course of action with her lawyer.
Subashini’s lawyer K. Shanmuga told theSun Subashini was distraught over the judgment.
“She’s uncertain about her future and her children’s future. It’s a blow to her because she’s been told she can’t stop her husband from going to the syariah court to get orders regarding the breakup of their marriage, and she can’t stop him from converting their younger child,” he said.
Civil or Syariah, still unclear
R.Surenthira Kumar and Jacqueline Ann Surin
http://sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=20334
PUTRAJAYA (Dec 27, 2007): In handing down what is widely seen as an equivocal decision today, the Federal Court drew away from answering the question of which court, civil or Syariah, has exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases involving non-Muslim spouses whose partners had converted to Islam.
However the apex court made it clear, when it unanimously decided, that the High Court still has jurisdiction to hear cases involving non-Muslim spouses involved in a matrimonial disputes, even though the other partner had converted to Islam.
This was among the rulings that the three-man panel of judges handed down in the decision of the much awaited case of R.Subashini vs T.Saravanan today.
In the 2-1 decision, the head of the panel Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Abd Rahman and Datuk Azmel Ma’amor concurred while Datuk Abdul Aziz Mohamad gave a dissenting judgement.
The rulings allow Saravanan, 31, whose Muslim name is Muhammad Shafi Abdullah to continue to seek recourse in the syariah court while Subashini, 29, can proceed to file for divorce proceedings in the civil court.
Nik Hashim said by embracing Islam, the husband and the son became subject to Muslim personal and religious laws and it is not an abuse of process if Saravanan, being a Muslim, seeks remedies in the Syariah High Court as it is his right to do so.
The Federal court however cautioned that questions may arise as to whether Subashini would be bound by the syariah court's decisions because she is not a Muslim.
“To my mind, the dissolution order of the civil marriage by the Syariah High Court by virtue of conversion would have no legal effect in the High Court other than as evidence of the fact of the dissolution of the marriage under the Islamic law in accordance with Hukum Syarak," said Nik Hashim.
"Thus, the non-Muslim marriage between the husband and wife remains intact amd continues to subsist until the High Court dissolves it pursuant to a petition for divorce by the unconverted spouse under Section 51(1) of the 1976 Act,” he added.
Nik Hashim said there is no impediment for Saravanan to appear in the divorce proceeding at the High Court albeit as respondent, as the jurisdiction of the High Court extends to him, unlike the Syariah High Court which restricts its jurisdiction to persons professing the religion of Islam only.
The court also paved the way for Saravanan to carry on with his other aims, including to seek custody of the two children and conversion of the second child to Islam, when the court set aside the Erinford injunctions obtained by Subashini previously against Saravanan.
But in this particular case, the court ruled that it could not grant the injunction because Subashini’s divorce petition was premature, due to the fact it was filed short of the three-month requirement.
Saravanan’s lawyer had argued during the trial that she had ignored the Islamic imposition of waiting for three menstrual cycles to lapse first.
Saravanan had previously converted his elder son to Islam when he embraced Islam on May 18, 2006.
“The wife’s petition was filed in contravention of the requirement under proviso to Section 51(1) of the 1976 Act in that it was filed two months and 18 days short of three months after the husband’s conversion to Islam,” said Nik Hashim.
He added it follows therefore that the petition was premature and invalid and the summons-in-chambers, ex-parte and inter parte based on the petition which were filed therein were also invalid.
Nik Hashim said the wife is entitled to proceed with the rest of the application but it would be most appropriate she files her petition for divorce afresh under Section 51 coupled with an application for ancillary reliefs as the court would grant the reliefs under Section 51(2) upon the dissolution of the marriage.
On the issue of whether, one parent can prevent the other from converting the religion of their children, Nik Hashim and Azmel ruled that either party cannot refrain the other from doing so.
Abdul Aziz howver disagreed, saying the opposing party has a right for his/her objections to be heard.
The Federal court also unanimously ruled the courts are eligible to grant Erinford injunctions to the disputing parties, to temporarily halt orders from the other courts, pending the applications to seek for leave to appeal to the higher courts.
After the decision was handed down, Subashini said she was disappointed with the judgement., saying she wished the judges had looked into her rights as a mother.
“It is unfair to treat me like this. I gave birth to our children and I have a right to make a decision about my children, as a mother,” she said in a phone interview with theSun.
“How can they say my estranged husband has the right to convert our second child? Does this mean I will lose my second son as well?” she added.
Subashini has not met her first son, Dharvin Joshua, for the past two years since her husband, Saravanan, converted the boy.
She said Saravanan, was only willing to grant her access to Dharvin in exchange for access to their youngest child, Sharvin.
Subashini said she was willing to give up not seeing Dharvin for fear that Saravanan would convert their second child as well.
“If that happens, then I am afraid that both my kids will be taken away from me, and I will have no one,” she said.
Subashini said it was unfair that her newly-converted husband seems to have been granted more rights over her as a mother.
“Where is my right, as a mother?” she asked, adding that she was still discussing her next course of action with her lawyer.
Subashini’s lawyer K. Shanmuga told theSun Subashini was distraught over the judgment.
“She’s uncertain about her future and her children’s future. It’s a blow to her because she’s been told she can’t stop her husband from going to the syariah court to get orders regarding the breakup of their marriage, and she can’t stop him from converting their younger child,” he said.
Meanwhile, Saravanan's lawyer Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar, said it was difficult for him to respond to the latest development in the court case as they have yet to get the full written judgment.
"We have to wait for the full judgment first as we need to see what we can or cannot do. We have to see the reasonings of the judgment," he said to theSun when contacted today.
Subashini loses bid to stop her son's conversion by her estranged husband
PUTRAJAYA (Dec 27, 2007): The Federal Court today threw out a bid by a Hindu woman to stop her estranged husband from converting their youngest son to Islam.
Her case is another sign of strain in the social fabric of the multi-racial nation,where many non-Muslims believe their rights are being trampled by the Muslim majority.
R.Subashini took legal action after her husband converted himself and their elder son, now four, to Islam in 2006. She says she now fears the husband wants to take their two-year-old, who still lives with her, and convert him to Islam as well.
The Federal Court rejected her request for an injunction on technical grounds, leaving her free to try again, but one judge noted the court's jurisdiction was limited, given the husband was now a Muslim and therefore governed by Islamic or syariah law.
"The civil and syariah courts cannot interfere with each other's jurisdiction," said Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman, one of two judges who dismissed the case One judge dissented.
Family law has become an emotional battleground between Malaysia's religious communities, with non-Muslims complaining civil courts are too willing to surrender jurisdiction to their Islamic counterparts in cases involving a Muslim conversion.
Marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims are forbidden in Malaysia, so once a non-Muslim spouse converts to Islam, the union is broken, lawyers say. While it can still exist under civil law, in reality the Islamic court does not recognise it.
A lawyer for Subashini said although his client's case failed on a technicality, the judges' comments made it clear they recognised the husband's right, as a newly converted Muslim, to have recourse to the Islamic courts.
"The High Court has jurisdiction to hear matters when this is a non-Muslim marriage but the husband also has a right to syariah court under Islamic Law," lawyer K. Shanmuga said when asked by reporters to sum up the ruling's significance.
Subashini, a 29-year-old clerk, had initially asked the High Court to prevent her husband from gaining custody of both their sons through the syariah courts.
Her husband, a 32-year-old businessman, had converted to Islam and when he conveyed the news to his wife, she attempted suicide and was admitted to hospital.
After her hospitalisation, she discovered her husband had converted their eldest son to Islam.
Her lawyers had told the Federal Court the civil system was the right place for this case because she was not a Muslim.
They cited a landmark ruling by the Federal Court in July which stated that if one party was a non-Muslim, the syariah court had no jurisdiction. This was a rare ruling that went against a tide of decisions granting jurisdiction to the Islamic courts. – Reuters
| Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email My understanding (which stands to be corrected) is that the duality is creating problems.
1. The civil marriage should be dissolved in the civil court. the judges agree on this. What if subashini declines to proceed with the divorce? will she be still the legal wife under civil law, but not recognised by syariah law? Can she sue for living expenses, the husband's property etc. later under civil law? If she divorces him, would the property and assets be divided accordingly? how about living subsistence?
2. the husband who converted can pursue his divorce proceedings in shariah court, but it will be recognisable only within islamic domain. so, will the NRD recognise the divorce? If not, will the husband be punished for being legally married to a non-muslim? Can the syariah court accept the divorce result from civil court – to save time and cost and duplicity?
3. Since in syariah law (selangor state), it is said that a parent can convert his/her child as well, what the husband did was correct under law. but this is a cruel and vile act indeed. so much for the compassionate religion. Now the learned judges are telling that there should be an avenue for the other parent to voice objection. what avenue? civil court? then syariah may throw out the civil court judgement since it may be enroaching on islamic issue. if syariah court is the avenue, subashini may not get a fair treatment, besides being non-muslim which means she is not subject to syariah law. so, again another grey area!
4. if each apply for child custody in separate courts, whose judgement will be binding? syariah court may say husband keep the children since they are converted by the husband (how convenient!) while civil court may say subashini keeps the children. or civil court may say that since children have converted, husband gets to keep them. have you seen any worse injustice and perversion of law than this? since the children are product of civil marriage, the children's fate should be decided in civil court. but the cunning husband converts the child and makes him subject to syariah court!
the situation may turn out that subashini gets to raise her children who will be converted to islam by the husband while she is filing another appeal. she can't stop the conversion as it agreed that a parent can do the conversion, no matter how evil, vile and cruel it sounds.
For me, the solution is to ask the husband if he is malaysian first or muslim first. if he is muslim first, kick him out of the country. we don't need such people here. if he is malaysian first, the go to civil court which is open to all malaysian. that's fair in my eyes.
for future cases, JAKIM and other govt agencies must ensure that any would be converts get explicit approval from their families or spouses and settle all divorce/custody/property/asset issues first before converting. perhaps those planning to convert should be given counselling first by their respective religious bodies like Hindu Sangam etc. to ensure the conversion is not superficial or to try bring back the would-be converted back to the original path.
PUTRAJAYA: A High Court has the authority to hear matrimonial disputes of a non-Muslim marriage even if a spouse has converted to Islam.
Federal Court judges Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman, Datuk Abdul Aziz Mohamad and Datuk Azmel Ma'amor took the unanimous stand yesterday over this longstanding contentious constitutional issue.
However, in a majority ruling, the apex court dismissed R. Subashini's appeal against the dismissal of her injunction application to stop her husband T. Saravanan, whose Muslim name is Muhammad Shafi Abdullah, from dissolving their civil marriage at the syariah court and converting their underage child. Nik Hashim and Azmel in a 2-1 ruling dismissed Subashini's appeal because her divorce petition was filed prematurely.
They also said that the spouse who had converted would not have abused the court process by going to the syariah court to obtain the necessary remedy.
Aziz, who dissented, said since Shafi's date of conversion was unclear, it must be tried before the High Court and as such the injunction should be granted.
All three also held that a spouse who had embraced Islam could convert his or her children without the consent of the other spouse. Aziz, however, said in this case, Subashini must be given the opportunity to object to the conversion.
In the majority judgment written by Nik Hashim, he said section 51 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 allowed Subashini to dissolve her marriage on grounds that her husband had converted to Islam. He said a proviso in that section, however, imposed a caveat on the wife not to file the petition of divorce until a lapse of three months from the date of the husband's conversion. Nik Hashim said that Shafi and his elder son, Dharvin Joshua, had converted on May 18 last year and that their certificates of conversion conclusively proved this fact.
He said he agreed with the Court of Appeal majority judgment that Subashini's petition contravened the requirement of the proviso of the section as it was filed two months and 18 days after the conversion. "Therefore, the petition was premature and invalid," he said, adding that it would be appropriate for Subashini to file a fresh petition in the High Court to seek all remedies she wanted.
Nik Hashim said he would proceed to answer the jurisdiction issue although Subashini's petition was invalid because a decision of the Federal Court would be of public advantage. "Assuming the petition was filed three months after the conversion, then the High Court would have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter even though the husband had converted and commenced proceedings in the syariah court."
Nik Hashim said the status of the parties at the time of marriage was material in determining the question of jurisdiction. "The husband could not shield himself behind the freedom of religion article in the Federal Constitution to avoid his obligation under the 1976 Act on grounds that the civil court has no jurisdiction over him," he said.
Nik Hashim said by embracing Islam, Shafi and Dharvin were subject to Muslim personal and religious laws and it was not an abuse of process if he sought remedies at the syariah court. "Although, the syariah courts are state courts, they are not lower in status than the civil court. I would say they are of equal standing under the Constitution," he said.
Nik Hashim said Subashini's complaint that Shafi had no right to convert either child to Islam was misconceived because a careful study of the laws revealed that the husband or wife had such right.
PUTRAJAYA: Muhammad Shafi Abdullah's conversion is disputable and this has to be determined at the High Court.
Federal Court judge Datuk Abdul Aziz Mohamad said as such he was allowing R. Subashini's appeal to stop Shafi from dissolving their civil marriage in the syariah court.
Aziz said the court must determine whether the conversion date of Shafi was based on his certificate or on facts made available to Subashini. "The (Subashini's) petition was presented on Aug 4 last year. It would escape the (three month) prohibition only if the husband converted on May 4 last year or earlier," he said in his dissenting judgment. (The majority judgment said that Shafi had conclusively converted on May 18 last year.)
Aziz said the civil court had exclusive jurisdiction over dissolution of marriage, maintenance, custody and other ancillary relief because the union was solemnised under Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. Aziz said Shafi had abused the process in getting the custody of the children in the syariah court because the religious court has no jurisdiction in the custody of a non-Muslim marriage.
He added that Subashini had a right to be heard. "She can object to the conversion or seek an injunction to stop the procedure," he said.
KUALA LUMPUR: Bar Council chairman Ambiga Sreenivasan said the Federal Court's decision was a positive move, as it recognised that the Syariah High Court had no jurisdiction over non-Muslims.
"I need to read the grounds of the judgment in full before I can comment any further. "But judging from the brief report, a positive part of the case is that it has upheld the decision in the case of Tan Sung Mooi v Too Miew Kim, and held that the civil court is the court where dissolution of marriage takes place." In the 1994 case, the court decided that the civil courts would have jurisdiction to annul a marriage where one party was a non-Muslim.
"However, a worrying aspect of the case is it has held that a parent can convert a child, which is not entirely in accord with our reading of the Federal Constitution.
"We think such a decision should require the consent of both parents. Additionally, it doesn't appear to resolve the issues which are faced by couples who are in a similar situation."
| Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email As far as I can understand, the judges are telling that Suba is correct and the husband also correct in initiating divorce; the husband is correct to convert the son, and still it does not provide any answer. It just goes to show that the law is not clear. in this case, if the husband converts the child, what about the mother's rights? violated right?
So who will judge the custody case? the children were product of civil marriage and should be treated as such. i still believe the husband is misusing the loopholes in the religion and law, and spoiling the name of Islam. Is this the sign of a compassionate religion? Not if people like the husband are around.
| Subashini case: Divorce comes under civil court http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/76423 |
| Soon Li Tsin | Dec 27, 07 12:24pm |
|
The Federal Court today ruled that the syariah courts cannot dissolve a civil marriage and all dissolutions made in the religious court is only effective and applicable within the confines of Islamic law. “The non-Muslim marriage between the husband and wife remains intact and continues to subsist until the High Court dissolves it pursuant to a divorce petition by the unconverted spouse…,” justice Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman, who headed a three-judge bench, told the court. This is a minor victory for company secretary R Subashini as her marriage with Islam-convert husband T Saravanan was a civil marriage and she could clearly now go to the civil courts to seek remedies. Subashini, 28, a Hindu, is trying to stop her husband, who has converted to Islam and assumed the name Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah, from taking divorce and custody proceedings to the Syariah Court. Saravanan, a businessman, converted in May 2006 along with their eldest son, Dharvin Joshua, 4. He then launched proceedings in the Islamic court for divorce as well as the custody of their second son, Sharvin, 2. The Federal Court, in a 145-page judgment, said that the husband can still dissolve the marriage under syariah law but it will have no effect in the civil courts. It added that Saravanan can seek remedies in the syariah courts but it cannot compel Subashini to do the same because she is a non-Muslim. However, Federal Court did not make clear the issue concerning the custody of the two children as it also ruled today that both the husband and wife can initiate custody proceedings in their respective jurisdictions. The country’s highest court also held that Saravanan did not abuse the law by converting his four-year-old son to Islam without the knowledge of the mother. It said that according to the Article 12(4) Federal Constitution, only the consent of one parent is sufficient in the conversion of a child. "Either husband or wife has the right to convert a child of the marriage to Islam," said Nik Hashim. "The argument that both parents are vested with equal right to choose is misplaced. Hence the conversion of the elder son to Islam by the husband …. did not violate the Federal Constitution." The court also ruled that it was within the right of Saravanan as a Muslim to file the divorce proceedings in the Syariah Court. But Subashini case thrown out Nevertheless, the Federal Court three-member panel today threw out Subashini case on a legal technicality – that her divorce petition was “premature and invalid”. In a 2-1 decision, the court said that Subashini’s divorce petition was prematurely filed under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA). According to the act, the wife can only file for divorce three months after the date of her husband T Saravanan’s conversion to Islam, as stipulated under Islamic law. However, Subashini’s divorce petition was filed about two weeks before the three months expiration date. The divorce petition is deemed null and void. Nevertheless, Subashini can apply for a fresh petition. In today’s landmark decision, justice Azmel Ma'amor agreed with Nik Hashim while justice Abdul Aziz Mohamad was the lone dissenting voice. The judges, however, were unanimous that Subashini has no recourse for justice in the syariah courts because she is a non-Muslim. This overrules the decision made by the Court of Appeal on March 13 when justices Suriyadi Halim Omar and Hassan Lah – who made the majority 2-1 decision – told her to take her case before the Syariah Court, while justice Gopal Sri Ram dissented. According to the appellate court's majority decision, the injunction sought by Subashini was unsustainable because the Syariah Court is competent enough decide on the matter. The country's civil courts operate parallel to syariah courts for Muslims in areas of personal law, including divorce and child custody. Non-Muslim spouses say they fear they will not get an equal hearing if their cases are referred to the Islamic court. Subashini's case is one of a series of legal battles between Muslims and non-Muslims. Husband, wife not in court Both the husband and wife did not appear in court today. Asked how Subashini is coping, lawyer K Shanmuga said she has not seen Dharvin, who has been living with her estranged husband, since his conversion. “She is also extremely worried about her younger son, Sharvin, because he can be converted at any point in time without her knowledge based on today’s decision,” he said. Shanmuga described the court decision as a "blow" to his client. "The decision … causes great uncertainty about her children and what would become of their religion and custody rights," he said. Subashini failed to get an injunction to stop her husband from seeking a divorce in the Syariah Court and prevent him from converting their children. The lawyer said Subashini was not challenging the divorce but wanted it to be decided in a civil court. Shanmuga urged the government to hasten legal reforms to allow parents to have equal say in such matters. "This requires urgent legislative reforms to ensure both parents have an equal say in determining a child's religion and to prevent one party from going to a syariah court in respect to any matter dealing with a non-Muslim marriage," he said. Another lawyer involved in the case said the decision could force Subashini to flee with her younger son for fear her husband may try to convert him. "From the court decision, it appears that the Muslim husband can now proceed to convert the other son to Islam," he told AFP on condition on anonymity. |
| The landmark judgment in a nutshell http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/76448 |
| Soon Li Tsin | Dec 27, 07 8:36pm |
|
It took more than an hour for the judgment to be read in court. The majority decision was delivered by Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman – who headed the Federal Court three-member bench – while Abdul Aziz Mohamad delivered the minority decision. Majority decision – Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman and Azmel Ma'amor • Subashini’s divorce petition under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act is deem null and void because it was filed before the requisite three months period. • Saravanan and Subashini’s civil marriage can only be dissolved using civil law. The husband can still dissolve it under syariah law but it will have no effect in the civil courts. • Saravanan can seek relief in the syariah courts but it cannot compel Subashini to do the same because she is a non-Muslim. • Saravanan did not abuse the process by converting his child because the consent from one parent is sufficient according to Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution . • The evidence of Saravanan’s conversion must be tried in order to determine whether the conversion date was based on his certificate or on facts made available to Subashini. • Saravanan had abused the process in seeking the custody of the children in the Syariah Court because the religious court has no jurisdiction over a non-Muslim marriage. • Saravanan’s conversion of the children is not unilateral and the wife has a right to object to the conversion as well as seek an injunction to stop the procedure. • The High Court has exclusive jurisdiction in matters of dissolution of marriage, maintenance, custody and other ancillary reliefs because the marriage was solemnised under civil law. Federal Court dismisses Subashini's case By M. MAGESWARI PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court ruled that the dispute between secretary R. Subashini, 29, and her Muslim-convert husband T. Saravanan alias Muhammad Shafi Abdullah, 32, over the dissolution of their marriage and child custody will continue to be under the jurisdiction of the civil court. In the landmark decision on Thursday, Federal Court judge Justice Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman said a non-Muslim marriage does not automatically dissolve when one of the parties converts to Islam. "Thus, by contracting the civil marriage, the husband and wife were bound by the 1976 Act (Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) in respect to divorce and custody of the children of the marriage, and thus, the civil court continues to have jurisdiction over him, notwithstanding his conversion to Islam," he said. In a 2-1 majority judgment, Justice Nik Hashim said by embracing Islam, Saravanan and his eldest son (who also converted) became subject to Muslim personal and religious laws. "It is not an abuse of process, if he, being a Muslim, seeks remedies in the Syariah High Court as it is his right to do so," he said. Justice Nik Hashim, who sat together with Federal Court judges Justices Abdul Aziz Mohamad and Azmel Maamor, said this: "To my mind, the dissolution order of the civil marriage by the Syariah High Court by virtue of conversion would have no legal effect in the High Court other than as evidence of the fact of the dissolution of the marriage under the Islamic law in accordance with Hukum Syarak. "Thus, the non-Muslim marriage between the husband and wife remains intact and continues to subsist until the High Court dissolves it pursuant to a petition for divorce by the unconverted spouse under Section 51(1) of the 1976 Act," he said. He said there is no impediment for the converted husband to appear in the divorce proceeding in the High Court. He said the contention that the wife could submit to the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court and have recourse to Section 53 of the 1993 Act are not quite correct as the Act limits its jurisdiction to Muslims only. "The wife, being a non-Muslim, has no locus in the Syariah court," he said. Both judges also agreed that although the Syariah courts are state courts, they are not lower in status than the civil courts. Justices Nik Hashim and Azmel threw out Subashini's appeal by a majority saying that the divorce petition filed at High Court by Subashini was premature and invalid as it was filed two months and 18 days short of three months after the husband's conversion to Islam. Justice Nik Hashim said it was his view that Subashini was entitled to proceed with her application on custody but it would be most appropriate if she filed her petition for divorce afresh. On conversion, both judges said either husband or wife has the right to convert a child of the marriage to Islam. |
| Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email Break for mum denied convert son’s bequest
PENANG: The Amanah Raya Berhad has offered to settle a suit by a Hindu woman who could not inherit the insurance monies left by her son who died a Muslim. High Court judge Justice John Louis O’Hara fixed Jan 29 for mention pending the settlement between Amanah Raya and 61-year-old cleaner M. Rukumony.
The woman had also named the Koperasi Angkatan Tentera Malaysia Berhad in her claim dated April 15, 2005. She claimed that her son E. Ragu, 23, who was an army ranger, was found in a coma at Kem Wardieburn Setapak Kuala Lumpur, and died at the Kuala Lumpur Hospital on Aug 2, 2000.
In her claim, Rukumony said the co-operative had taken out a policy on her son but refused to pay her the RM56,300 and instead had deposited it with Amanah Raya. Ragu, a bachelor, had made a trust deed on Sept 6, 1999, and an assignment under Section 23 of the Civil Law Act 1956 on Feb 1, 2000, making Rukumony the beneficiary.
The co-operative said Ragu converted to Islam on Dec 31, 1999, and his Muslim name was Mohamed Redzuan Abdullah Ellaiappan. It claimed that under the Syariah Law, Rukumony could not inherit the property of her deceased son because she is a non-Muslim. The Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council has intervened in the case.
Counsel Darshan Singh Khaira represented Rukumony while Rosmaidar Mustafa represented Amanah Raya. Abdul Muiz Samsuri appeared for the council. Rukumony was not present in court yesterday.
© 2026 poobalan.com · Proudly powered by WordPress & Green Park 2 by Cordobo.
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional | Valid CSS 3
