NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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