The crux of the contentious issue is whether the consent of only one parent is required to make minor children Muslim.

Lawyer M Kulasegaran said he received a letter from the Federal Court Registry on Tuesday evening that the five-man bench would deliver its ruling on Jan 29 at 9am.

“I am glad the court will make its verdict known after reserving judgment on Nov 30, 2016,” he told FMT.

The bench is led by current Court of Appeal President Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin. Other members are justices Richard Malanjun, Zainun Ali, Abu Samah Nordin and Ramly Ali.

Abu Samah will be retiring on Feb 10 after serving an additional six-months on the bench.

During submission, Senior Federal Counsel Arik Sanusi Yeop Johari had said the government adopted the 2007 Federal Court ruling in the case of Subashini Rajasingam v Saravanan Thangathoray that a single parent could convert their children.

That submission by Arik Sanusi, representing the attorney-general, was in stark contrast to an amendment tabled by the government in the Dewan Rakyat in 2016 to the Law Reform Act (Marriage and Divorce) which governs non-Muslims.

Arik Sanusi had said the conversion of Indira’s children was also in accordance with Article 12 (4) of the Federal Constitution that the religion of a minor below 18 could be decided by a parent.

He said the apex court (in 2007) had rightly interpreted the constitution to give one parent the right to convert their underage children.

The judges in that case held the word “parent” as “a single parent” and it follows that either spouse has the right to convert a child of marriage to Islam.

However, the legal fraternity is of the view the 2-1 majority ruling was an obiter dictum, or passing remark.

Lawyers have argued that the 11th Schedule of the Federal Constitution provides that in interpreting the supreme law of the land, “words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular”.

As a consequence of the Subashini case, the spouse who became a Muslim can seek remedies in the shariah court.

The government had also submitted that Indira’s issue was about conversion and this matter could only be decided by the shariah court.

However, Indira’s legal team had told the bench earlier that this was an administrative issue to challenge the Registrar of Converts who did not follow a Perak enactment to register the conversions.

The kindergarten teacher wants the civil court to rule that their conversion certificates are null and void.

In December 2015, the majority Court of Appeal ruling held that the validity of the conversion by Indira’s ex-husband Muhammad Riduan Abdullah 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.

Indira’s two children, Tevi Darsiny, 20, and Karan Dinish, 19, are under her care.

In 2009, Riduan snatched Prasana Diksa, 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.

While awaiting a ruling in Indira’s case, parliament last year passed an act that granted the rights to a spouse who had converted to Islam to file a petition for divorce, to dissolve his or her civil marriage under subsection 51 (1) of the Law Reform Act.

Minister in charge of parliamentary affairs Azalina Othman said the amendment was aimed at safeguarding the interest and giving justice to both parties to resolve all issues arising from the dissolution of the marriage.

It proposes, among other things, that the consent of both parents, including the spouse who had embraced Islam, is needed to make their minor children Muslim.