Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

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