SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Reject a Plaint While Exercising Jurisdiction under Article 227  ||  SC: Merely Leasing an Apartment Does Not Bar a Flat Buyer’s Consumer Complaint Against the Builder  ||  Delhi HC: Unproven Adultery Allegations Cannot be Used to Deny Interim Maintenance under the DV Act  ||  Bombay HC: Storing Items in a Fridge isn’t Manufacturing and Doesn’t Make Premises a Factory  ||  Kerala HC: Disability Pension is Not Payable if the Condition is Unrelated to Military Service  ||  Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC    

Krishna Prasad Ranganath v. The State of Karnataka and Ors. - (High Court of Karnataka) (20 May 2016)

Desperate father misleading British court denied relief

MANU/KA/1034/2016

Family

A person having obtained a favourable order from a foreign court cannot claim its benefit if the same was obtained by defrauding that court.

The case involved a custody dispute for two children of the Petitioner-Husband and Respondent-Wife. He claimed that the family was resident in the United Kingdom. However, upon their return to India the Respondent and her family forcibly took away the children.

Before the High Court of Justice, Family Division in the UK Petitioner claimed that the minor children had been wrongfully taken out of jurisdiction and made various misrepresentations about the whereabouts of the Respondent and normal separation due to matrimonial disputes. On the basis of Petitioner’s false statements, the British court ordered Respondent to hand over custody of the children to Petitioner and let him bring them back to the UK.

Considering whether Petitioner could benefit from the fraud perpetrated on the British court, it noted simply that he not be allowed to take advantage of the order. It added that the court with most intimate contact and closest concert was best placed for determining the welfare and interest of the children. Since both parties were permanent resident in Mysuru, and the children were brought up in Indian culture and ethos, it was suitably placed to deny relief to the Petitioner.

Tags : FAMILY   HIGH COURT   UNITED KINGDOM   FRAUD   CHILDREN   WELFARE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved