NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved