Manohara Odelia Pinot

Legal proceedings Civil defamation case On 20 July 2009, Fakhry filed a defamation suit against Manohara and Fajarina in the Kuala Lumpur High Court, seeking RM105 million over statements they had made at press conferences between April and June 2009. The law firm representing Manohara and Fajarina later withdrew, and on 29 October the court gave them until 5 November to appoint new counsel.

Fakhry later gave evidence during proceedings to determine damages, maintaining that the allegations were false and had damaged his reputation. The Times reported that Fakhry would need to begin legal proceedings in Indonesia to enforce the award there. At a hearing on 15 November 2009, Fakhry's cousin Tengku Azwani Tengku Iskandar, the only witness called, said that she had been close to the pair and had neither witnessed abuse nor received a complaint from Manohara. The judge rejected the position that the money had been a gift and noted that Manohara had not appeared during the proceedings. In 2026, Manohara said that she had not consented to the ceremony and did not consider herself legally married to Fakhry. Fajarina held a separate press conference that day and appealed to Najib to investigate her daughter's situation and help restore contact between them. After Manohara returned to Indonesia, Malaysian deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin said that the Malaysian government regarded the dispute as a personal matter and did not intend to investigate it. Political scientists Khadijah Md. Khalid and Shakila Yacob wrote that her allegations were received more sceptically in Malaysia, while her case received prominent and largely sympathetic coverage in Indonesia. Malaysian officials also regarded Indonesian coverage of the case as sensational and maintained that the dispute was a private matter between Manohara and Fakhry. In 2018, Manohara began volunteering with the Jakarta Animal Aid Network after being invited by animal-welfare activist Femke Den Haas. She said that the label wrongly implied that she had entered the marriage voluntarily. She maintained that she had been coerced as a minor and that the union was invalid. She described the request as a correction to the public record.