SC: Lessee Cannot Challenge Eviction After Landowner Withdraws Plea  ||  SC: Appointment Contrary to Recruitment Advertisement Constitutes Fraud on Public  ||  SC: Bribe Given to Intermediary Alone Insufficient to Establish Public Servant's Guilt under PC Act  ||  SC: AO Cannot Revive Assessment Concluded by Settlement Commission under Income Tax Act  ||  SC: Insurer's Office Location Alone can't Confer Jurisdiction for Claim under MV Act  ||  Calcutta HC: Mutual Consent Divorce Justifies Quashing S.498A IPC Cruelty Case under HMA  ||  Delhi HC: Mere 2-Year Delay in Arbitral Award does not Warrant Setting Aside  ||  Kerala HC: Courts can't Insist on Identifying Unknown Parties in John Doe Suits  ||  Supreme Court: Army Must Prove Disability Was Unrelated to Service to Deny Pension  ||  SC: Grant of Fishing Rights by Deed is a Transfer of Immovable Property, Qualifies as Lease    

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