Ipoh High Court dismisses Indira Gandhi’s bid to cite the IGP for contempt over failure to locate her ex-husband Pathmanathan.
IPOH: The High Court today dismissed M. Indira Gandhi’s application for leave to initiate committal proceedings (contempt of court) against the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and several others over alleged failure to trace her former husband, K. Pathmanathan, also known as Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, in attempts to recover their daughter, Prasana Diksa.
Judge Datuk Norsharidah Awang made the decision after hearing submissions from both parties, with no order as to costs.
In delivering the judgment, she said the evidence presented showed that investigations had been initiated and were still ongoing.
“Under these circumstances, the court is unable to conclude that the proposed contemnors have failed or refused to comply with the court’s directions, as the very investigation ordered by the court has yet to be completed.
“Accordingly, the court finds that the evidence relied upon by the applicant, including the alleged utilisation of SARA 100 and BUDI95 aid by Patmanathan, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case warranting the grant of leave to commence committal proceedings against the proposed contemnors.
“The application is therefore dismissed,” she said.
Indira had filed the second application on Nov 17, 2025, seeking permission to initiate committal proceedings against the IGP, alleging delays in locating Pathmanathan despite information suggesting he had accessed government assistance that could help trace him.
She had previously filed a similar application in October 2020, which was dismissed by the Ipoh High Court in 2022. The Court of Appeal also rejected her appeal on April 5, 2024, citing a Federal Court ruling on conflicting custody orders between civil and Syariah courts.
During judicial monitoring proceedings, federal counsel Safiyyah Omar said the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) had reviewed information with the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) regarding withdrawals made by Pathmanathan.
She said two employer addresses linked to Pathmanathan and his wife had been identified, both in Kelantan, and further action was being taken.
Indira’s counsel, Harsimran Kaur, however, questioned the delay in initiating investigations and why only the wife’s employer details were checked.
Investigating officer ASP Yap Siew Cheng said the probe was ongoing and required more time.
The court has fixed Nov 27 for PDRM to update the court on the progress of investigations.
