Deepa vs Izwan: Justice or cop-out?

It appears to laymen that a sloppy compromise was reached.

COMMENT

Was justice served in the Federal Court decision on the Deepa vs Izwan case? To many laymen, it appeared as if a sloppy compromise was reached. Some lawyers may disagree, but at the end of the day, what sways the average Malaysian?

We ascertain our facts from the news reports in both the mainstream and alternative media. We trust that the information was accurate.

These are some of the facts, gleaned from various sources.

2003: Deepa married N Viran, a lorry driver. After nine years of marriage, Viran was jailed for his role in a pirate DVD syndicate.

While they were still married, a press release from Women’s Aid Organisation said that Deepa had lodged more than 25 police reports complaining of domestic violence. She obtained a Custody Order (CO) as well as an Interim Protection Order (IPO) to protect herself and her children from her husband.

2012: Izwan was released from prison. He converted to Islam. By then, he and Deepa were living separately. Deepa filed for divorce.

April 2013: Deepa claimed that she had gone to the Pusat Dakwah Islamiah in Paroi to obtain a confirmation letter about her husband’s conversion. She needed to file the letter in her divorce suit.

Whilst she was at the Pusat Dakwah, she saw her two children with their father. She learnt then that he had fetched them from their kindergarten classes to take them to the Pusat Dakwah, where they were converted.

According to a news report, she said, “I got into an argument with my husband after he showed papers that said both our children had converted to Islam without my knowledge, with Mithran now named Nabil and Sharmila named Nur Nabila.

“A person by the name of Ustaz Zul spoke to us. He told me that he had converted both my children because I was being unfaithful to my husband and was not fit to take care of them. I voiced my objections.”

It is interesting that Deepa was not given the opportunity by Ustaz Zul to refute those allegations before he converted the children.

Ustaz Zul later told Deepa, probably a few days later, that the case was with the Syariah Court and she had to take her complaints there.

September 2013: The Syariah High Court granted custody of the children to Izwan.

April 2014: The Seremban High Court granted custody to Deepa on the grounds that her marriage to Izwan was a civil marriage.

April 2014: Izwan abducted his son. The police refused to act because of the “conflicting jurisdictions of the civil and Syariah courts.”

December 2014: The Court of Appeal dismissed Izwan’s challenge against the decision of the Seremban High Court.

February 2016: The Federal Court gave custody of the daughter to Deepa and the son to Izwan.

Many questions remain unanswered. The main ones are:

• Why was the issue of forced conversion of children to Islam not addressed? Where does the non-Muslim party go to seek justice?
• Why was the crime of kidnapping committed by Izwan not addressed? Will we see more kidnaps in future custody battles?
• Why did the police ignore the Interim Protection Order (IPO)? Deepa applied for protection for herself and her children. She did not get it. The police reneged on their duty and responsibility.

Mariam Mokhtar is an FMT columnist