The Federal Court judges hearing clerk R Subashini's leave application to appeal against a Court of Appeal decision regarding her matrimonial and custodial rights appeared to be troubled by the questions posed today.

The three judges sought clarification from the counsels on both sides.

Seven questions, agreed upon by Subashini and her husband T Saravanan, were read out by the former's lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar.

The questions pertained to jurisdiction - whether civil or syariah courts is more authoritative over the issue, Subashini's divorce petition and injunction sought.

Malik insisted that these issues needed a final answer as it continued to affect marriages where one of the spouse had converted to Islam.

Chair judge Abdul Hamid Mohamad then voiced his concern over the open-endedness of the case after discussing with justices S Augustine Paul and Abdul Aziz Mohamad.

"The question now is should we at this stage give a final answer on the issue that has not been decided on its merits?

"The final decision cannot be made pertaining to matters concerning the jurisdiction and divorce petition but somehow the Court of Appeal has made a decision on the issue," he said.

"We are only concerned with the injunction pending the determination of these issues (on jurisdiction and the divorce petition)," Abdul Hamid added before adjourning the session.

Justice Augustine said the questions should be narrowed and limited only to the injunction.

Similar conclusions

However, Malik argued that since both the High Court and Court of Appeal reached similar conclusions despite lack of discussion on the merits, its paramount for the country's highest court to decide on these issues.

"The Court of Appeal had agreed with the High Court where the injunction was refused based on constitutional grounds.

"Also, the question of law pertaining to jurisdiction was decided when the Court of Appeal told Subashini to seek legal redress in the syariah courts," said the lawyer.

Met outside the courtroom later, Malik said the judges appeared to be troubled with what the Court of Appeal might have done.

On March 13, the appellate court dismissed the attempt by Subashini, 28, to stop her 31-year-old husband, who has converted to Islam and assumed the name Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah from bringing divorce proceedings to the syariah court.

She was told by justices Suriyadi Halim Omar and Hassan Lah who made the majority 2-1 decision to take her case before the Syariah Court instead while Justice Gopal Sri Ram dissented.

According to the majority decision, the injunction was unsustainable because the Syariah Court is competent enough decide on the matter.

However, on March 30, Subashini was granted an interim injunction by the Court of Appeal restraining Saravanan from pursuing his claims in the Islamic court.

The injunction also effectively restrained him from converting their second child (aged one) and from pursuing his custody claims in the syariah court. The first child, aged three, has already been converted to Islam.

It was also held in the landmark ruling that a Muslim could apply to the Islamic court to convert his or her underage children without permission from the non-Muslim spouse.

Subashini was also represented by K Shanmuga while Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar and Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdullah appeared for Saravanan.

Submissions by both parties will continue in the Federal Court tomorrow.