Instead, Indira’s lawyer, K. Shanmuga urged the five-man panel to proceed with her appeal as she did not want a further delay on the matter.

Shanmuga told the five-man bench that Muhammad Riduan Abdullah’s lawyer Hatim Musa had informed him that his client and Prasana Diksa, now 8, were not present in court this morning.

He then withdrew the objection as Riduan was only a nominal respondent to the appeal filed by Indira.

“He is still in contempt of court for failure to bring the child but he is a nominal respondent compared to the Perak state religious authorities,” Shanmuga said.

The lawyer told the bench that he was also informed by Senior Federal Counsel Shamsul Bolhassan that police could not locate Riduan to execute the warrant of arrest.

Chief Judge of Malaya Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin then ruled that Hatim could participate in the proceedings.

Hatim later told reporters that he had tried to contact Riduan to bring Prasana to court through a third party but to no avail.

A distraught Indira said she was hoping to meet her daughter whom she last saw as a toddler.

“Several years have passed but in my mind she is still a baby,” she said.

It is not known where Riduan and Prasana are living now.

The apex court yesterday deferred hearing to give Riduan, previously known as K Pathmanathan, a last chance to produce the couple’s daughter to the mother.

Riduan was also scheduled to explain to the bench why he refused to obey a 2014 High Court order by Justice Lee Swee Seng to return Prasana to Indira.

She then obtained another order from Lee to compel the police to locate Riduan and place him under arrest until the contempt is purged.

The Federal Court in April upheld Lee’s decision.

The police also did not execute the directive although lead counsel M Kulasegaran said that the order was served on the police in Bukit Aman last month.

The kindergarten teacher, who is challenging the unilateral conversion of her three children, wants the civil court to rule that their conversion certificates are null and void.

In December, the majority Court of Appeal ruling held that the validity of the conversion by Riduan could only be determined by the shariah court.

Justices Balia Yusof Wahi and Badariah Sahamid said the civil court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the conversion.

However, Justice Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, in his dissenting judgment, said the conversion was purely an administrative matter and the civil court could inquire into the matter.

The other two children, Tevi Darsiny, 19, and Karan Dinish, 18, are in Indira’s care.

In 2009, Riduan snatched Prasana, then aged 11 months, before unilaterally converting the children in their absence.

Indira subsequently won full custody of her children in the High Court on March 11, 2010.