H (A Child)

This is a fact finding hearing relating to a small boy, H, who was born on 11^th September 2012. His mother is maintaining that he and she have been stranded in Pakistan without their passports and that the father took their passports and retained them. The father denies this.

The parents were both born in Pakistan. The mother is now 24 and the father is 34. By arrangement, they married in Pakistan on 29^th November 2011. The father stayed for some time in Pakistan, during which time the mother became pregnant. She eventually arrived in the United Kingdom on 18^th August 2012 on a spousal visa that expires in November 2014.

H was born in G on 11^th September 2012. It is agreed that, at that time, his mother was staying with her sister and brother-in-law. The father was living in L. He had a job there, but, he said, was on paternity leave and spent a considerable amount of time in G during H’s birth and thereafter.

At the same time, the father changed jobs and moved homes. He changed his employment from L to employment in P. He gave up his home in L and acquired a new two-bedroom house in P, to which the family travelled on 15^th October 2012. Up until that point, the mother had been staying with her sister and brother-in-law and the father had visited her after taking a few days paternity leave.

The family travelled to Pakistan, arriving on 23^rd December 2012, intending to stay there until 1^st January 2013, when the family were due to return to P in order for the father to return to work. There was an argument at Lahore airport upon their arrival, as a result of which the mother and son went to stay with her family in Lahore and the father went to stay with his family in O, about three hours’ drive away. It is this argument, which I have to concentrate on, and consider whether during the course of the row the father retained the mother and child’s passports, thereby preventing them from returning to this country.

It is the mother’s case that on 15^th November 2012, whilst she was at home in P, she discovered that the father had been married before and had a little girl by his former wife. She says that she accidentally came across information on his email on his computer and telephoned the father at work to ask who the woman was who was talking about a child. She says the father was upset that she had read his emails and upset that he was being challenged. From then on, the mother says that she lost trust in the father and made a practice of scanning such documents belonging to the father that she found in the home and sending them to her sister.

The father takes the view that the marriage was alright until they got to Lahore and the row took place. What is known now is that he did marry Miss A on 2^nd March 2007 in L. They had a daughter born on 13^th September 2010. There was a decree nisi on 31^st March 2011, with a decree absolute on 17^th May 2011. The father maintains that, during the negotiations for the marriage between himself and the mother, he (or his family on his behalf) made it clear to the mother’s father and brother that he had been previously married, the divorce was proceeding and there was a little girl as a consequence of that marriage.

It was through his marriage to Miss A, who is of Pakistani origin but a British citizen, that the father acquired his British citizenship in early 2010. He told me that the mother (his wife) of his daughter and he separated at the end of 2010, when the little girl was three or four months old. He says the mother’s family (in this case) knew about his previous marriage and daughter before the marriage took place. The mother is determined that she did not know about the previous marriage and did not know about the child until 15^th November. It may be that the father’s family told her own father what had happened. However, unfortunately there is no evidence what her father knew, because he died before the marriage actually took place.

There is also a further so-called marriage that took place earlier than that to Miss A, and this was to Miss R. It took place on 6^th November 2005 in Pakistan, when the father and Miss R went through a Nikah ceremony. The father maintains (and I do not think that it is challenged) that this marriage was never consummated and that there was never the second ceremony that often takes place the same day or sometime later, when the bride leaves her home to go and live with the husband. It seems, from what I have heard, that this second part of the marriage never took place and the marriage was not consummated.

The father accepts that he did not tell the mother about this Nikah to Miss R. He did indicate that he and his maternal uncle, the father of Miss R, were not on good terms. Those sides of the family are not speaking. He told the mother that he had refused to go through with the marriage and he said that he was only informally engaged. That is not what I understand a Nikah to be. It is a formal ceremony, yet he was somewhat dismissive of it to the mother, saying it was informal and saying that he only told her about it after she and he were married, when he was explaining to her why he and his uncle were not speaking.

The mother only came to know of the Nikah with Miss R in December 2013 or January 2014, but what it shows is that there was a history about which the father had not been clear to the mother before they married. The issue that has been raised against the father is that he did not tell the mother and that she did not know about the marriage to Miss A and the presence of his daughter until 15^th November.

It is difficult to know precisely how much the mother knew. It may be that her family knew more than she. What does appear to me from the evidence is that something happened on or about 15^th November. The mother says the discovery of this marriage and child upset her. My view is that if she had known something by then it had not impacted upon her. If she had known and understood, she would not have become so upset and distrusting of the father. She believes, and I accept, that in some way he deceived her about Miss A.

I have already referred to the Nikah with Miss R and that it was covered up and then glossed over. Even in evidence to me, the father was maintaining it was not a marriage. However, the reality is that he went through a formal ceremony, which linked him together with Miss R. What exactly his status was, I am not going to go into. I am not an expert in Sharia law, but it was a formal ceremony linking the two together. I accept the evidence that that link went no further; it was not consummated.

It has also been held against the father that, on her arrival to this country, he took the mother immediately to G. The mother says the journey to G took place immediately upon her arrival and the father says he took her overnight to L, where he lived, and then on to G, where she stayed with her sister. It is a criticism of the father. The reality is that the father was a man who went out to work at eight o’clock in the morning and came back at five o’clock in the afternoon. The mother was a stranger to this country and a stranger to L. Although she speaks English, this was the mother’s first time in the United Kingdom and she was very heavily pregnant.

Therefore, whether it was at her wish or his, it seems to have been a rather sensible conclusion to take her to S where she had supporters; her own sister who could keep an eye on her, look after her and give her a roof over her head whilst she waited for the baby, recovered from the birth and got used to looking after a new born infant. I do not feel the father should be criticised in having taken her to G.

What may be a criticism is that she may not have been fully consulted. However, I am not making any findings, one way or the other, because I view it as a practical arrangement that sounds sensible in the circumstances; they were a young couple who did not really know each other well, the mother was heavily pregnant and totally new to this country.

The trip to Pakistan over Christmas 2012 is a different matter and goes to the heart of what has happened. They left this country on 22^nd December. They were due to fly back on 1^st January, possibly arriving on 2^nd January. The trip was always going to be a short trip, because the father could only take advantage of the Christmas period and he had only earned two days leave from his new employment.

The mother and father tell diametrically opposed stories as to how and why the trip was arranged. The mother says that the father told her that his own grandmother, who was very old, was critically ill and that he wanted H to meet her before she died. The mother says that she was not willing to go because H was only about three months old and the health visitor and doctor advised her not to go as he had not been fully vaccinated. Moreover, by this stage she was suspicious of the father’s motives. The mother says she had learned about the father’s marriage to Miss A and his commitment to his daughter. The marriage was in some difficulties as a result, she having lost her trust in him.

The mother says that she agreed to go to Pakistan after she had persuaded the father to swear on the Quran that she would have in her possession her own and H’s passports while in Pakistan and that the father would bring them back to the United Kingdom. She also said in evidence that she copied all three passports and sent the copies to her sister. As she told King J in February, that was “to be on the safe side”.

The father tells a somewhat different story. He says that, in early December, the mother told him that her own mother was very ill in hospital, that she wanted to see her mother and that it was he who was reluctant to go, because he had very little time off from work, the tickets for the flight would be more expensive at that time of year and he was worried that H was so very young.

H’s British passport was obtained and dated 5^th December 2012. On 12^th December, his parents obtained for him a visa for Pakistan and also applied for a Pakistani ID card for him, which was subsequently granted and which the father received in P on or about 2^nd January 2013. It was planned that, whilst they were there in Pakistan, the family would stay with the father’s family. The parents’ application for H’s visa was made to the consulate here.

The difficulties arose at Lahore. The father maintains that throughout the journey the mother held in her handbag the family tickets and the family passports. He says that they were in her handbag throughout. However, at Lahore the passports had to be produced. The mother says that going through Passport Control the father had the three passports and retained them following Passport Control. The mother maintains that she had H in the pushchair and he was crying at Passport Control, making it necessary for her to pick him up out of the pushchair and hold him up to be photographed. She says at this point the father had all three passports and they went through together as a family. The father also had some hand luggage with him. She says he did not give back her passport or H’s passport to her, either after Passport Control, in the baggage hall or at any time afterwards.

The father says that he did not hold the passports of the mother or H and that the mother had them in her hand at Passport Control. He says he never retained them. He did obviously have his passport and he retained it. He told me also that she retained copies of the tickets in her handbag.

The mother says that they went through the baggage hall together and out to meet the families. She says there were representatives of both families waiting for them. There is a clear dispute about this. The father says that the mother went through straightaway to meet the family and he followed a few minutes later with the trolley and the baggage.

The father produced a statement from his cousin, Mr A, who was there at the airport waiting with a driver to take them away. Although Mr A has not given evidence and has, therefore, not been challenged in any way, what he says on behalf of the father at paragraph 4 of his statement, in relation to how they came out of the baggage hall, is that he was expecting to see everyone in a happy mood because they had got H with them. He said:

“… it was strangely observed that contrary to expectation the demeanour and moods of the guests [meaning father and mother] was found as tense as anxiety was writ large upon the faces of the guest-passengers.

That [the mother] was also found exchanging hot word even with the members of airport staff and was acting as if she was not part of a family but of three individuals. [She] was pushing the pushchair carrying the baby … whereas [the father] was pushing the trolley meant for luggage etc. [She also had] a handbag and her eyes were searching [for] her family members … as her brother, mother, a couple of cousins and some other males whom I didn’t recognise were also there at the airport but [she] remained tense with this deponent despite acquaintance and common purpose.”

Mr A then refers to what clearly was a row between the parties. The mother says that she was greeted by her own mother and her brother. The father says that, as well as her mother and her brother being there, so were the mother’s own sister, brother-in-law and two cousins. The mother says that only her mother and brother were present.

The father says that, when he arrived, only his cousin was there, Mr A, with a driver and at times his sister was either at the baggage hall or sitting in a car. His story did change. The mother says he was greeted by his two parents (the paternal grandparents), two drivers with two cars, his sister and his brother-in-law.

Clearly, there was a dispute. There was a dispute about passports. The mother apparently asked for the passports and they were not given to her, yet the father says to me that he had given them back. The mother also says that, at one stage, the father picked up H and gave him to the paternal grandmother. She said to King J that the paternal grandmother started “loving him”. In due course, the mother says that the child was removed from his grandmother by her own brother.

I have referred to Mr A’s evidence, which has not been tested, but he gives an account of the argument which had attracted attention. At the conclusion of the argument, both parties agree that they went their different ways. The father went to his parents’ home and the mother and H went to her family. The mother says that the father went with the passports of herself and H. The father says that the mother had them.

In evidence, the father was asked whether he was committed to the marriage when he arrived at Lahore airport. He replied that he was. However, on 24^th December, the next day following the dispute, he contacted the High Commission in Pakistan to cancel the mother’s spousal visa. By that means, he felt he would no longer be responsible for her if she came back to the United Kingdom. Indeed, he reiterated that by letter when he returned to this country.

The mother’s evidence was that, by this stage, she had lost trust in the father. She had copied various documents (including the three passports) and says that there were difficulties within the marriage.

It is interesting to refer to the father’s first statement in this matter, which was provided on 17^th July 2013. I refer specifically to paragraphs 26 and 27 of that statement. By this stage, according to the father, they were in P:

“Our relationship started to deteriorate rapidly. As soon as I would mention anything relating to my daughter, [mother] would argue with me telling me that as my daughter was living with her mother there was no need for me to see her. I was upset with this and I used to try to explain to [mother] that she is my daughter and she needs a father in her life. After every visit to my daughter, I used to return home and have to deal with [mother’s] arguments. [The mother’s] family and [she] kept on telling me to go to G as they did not want me to see my daughter and if I was far away from her then I would have difficulty seeing her. I told them I cannot leave my daughter and they were all aware I had a daughter before we got married.

I [became] firm with [mother] and told her that I will not be going to G, I will not leave my job which I have got after 8 years of hard work and dedication and will not leave my daughter for any reason. After this [mother] became very difficult and would be in a constant mood arguing with me over little things. My friends also spoke to her but she was adamant she did not want me to see my daughter and wanted me to stop giving her maintenance money.

Around the beginning of December 2012, [mother] told me that her mother was very ill and she wanted to meet her. She started crying and said she was very worried about her mother. I told her we could not travel as H was very young and I did not want to take leave as I had only been in my job for about 2 months. [She] wanted to travel during Christmas and I told her that the tickets would be very expensive at that time of the year. Everyday after that, when I returned from work, she would tell me how she was worried about her mother and would regret it if anything happened to her. She begged me to go for a short while as her mother had allegedly been hospitalised and was very serious.”

He then gives an account of how he got time off work and how much the tickets costs. By the time they travelled, he said at paragraph 30:

“[The mother] never told me she had made any plans of what she would do in Pakistan prior to going to Pakistan. By this time our relationship had turned into just saying hello and speaking about essentials and nothing more. [She] was very tense with me but I thought she was being like this due to her mother’s illness.”

It is also of some interest that the paternal grandmother, in her own much later proceedings in Pakistan, which she launched on 16^th July 2013, said at paragraph 5 of her statement:

“… their relationship [between husband and wife] had gone sour during [their] stay in [the] UK.”

I have to consider what it was that had happened and what the relationship was on their arrival in Lahore. I find, very simply, that the relationship was in great difficulty. I accept that the mother had lost trust in the father. It may be that she did not know about the previous marriage and the father’s daughter. It may be that she had not understood the commitment that the father had to his daughter.

In any event, the mother had lost trust in the father and she had copied passports. She was fearful that she would be stranded in Pakistan by the father and, this is not, sadly, an unknown situation. She had asked him to swear on the Quran that he would give her own and H’s passports to her upon their arrival in Lahore, so that she could retain them whilst she was in Pakistan, and that he would bring them back to the United Kingdom. That is a clear sign, from her point of view, that she was fearful of what might happen.

No doubt there were arguments between man and wife before they reached Pakistan. The husband himself accepts that the relationship had turned into just saying “hello” and speaking about essentials and nothing more. It was a marriage in great difficulties at that point. I accept that there were arguments about the father’s daughter and that this could have upset the mother.

However, it also appears from the recorded telephone call (whether it was in the end of December or the end of March, I will deal with that later) that the father himself was discontented with the mother. He was critical of her as a housewife and was a disappointed man in his marriage. Why he felt he had to cancel the visa the following day is something that one obviously has to ask. It was very quick, and it would prevent the mother from returning to this country if the visa was cancelled. He says he would have had no need to do that if he had retained the passports. He says he was very angry and reacted in an angry and bitter way.

The mother, in reply, says it was part of the father’s plan. It was to ensure that his plan was effective and his plan was to dump her in Pakistan.

The father, on the other hand, says that the mother had a plan; that on arrival in Pakistan, because she was not happy in the marriage and wanted to separate herself and H from the father, she wanted to go and stay with her mother. The father says that, during the row in the airport, the mother told him that she no longer wanted to live with him and wanted to go to her mother’s home and not to his.

Before I make any findings about this row, I have to look at the recorded telephone call. The mother says that she recorded this, along with other phone calls, because immediately after the parties had separated there had been a telephone call later that day, in which the father was extremely abusive to her. She thought it would be appropriate, if he telephoned her again, to record any conversation. She says it occurred on 24^th December. If she is wrong about that, it is very soon after the separation. The father says that the telephone call took place sometime at the end of March or early April; he accepts it was a call that he made. There is very little in the content of the recording to determine the date, but the contents are most of all important as it shows what each party was saying and how each party was reacting.

There was a second call that I have also read, dated 26^th December, which the mother says (and I think it is agreed) is of the father talking to her sister. Again, that call is of relevance because it refers to the row about passports at the airport, in that it indicates that there was a demand that the mother’s brother had asked for “our passports”. The father replied “Why should I leave my wife’s and my child’s passports there?”, but this becomes much more apparent in the longer recording that took place between mother and father, probably, as mother says, before the shorter one.

Looking at the longer telephone call. The father telephoned. He said:

“I will talk about anything else when you are really thinking straight, when you know your place, know your reality, know your worth, know the importance of relations, know the place of your husband and know the place of your parents in law.”

She said:

“I’m thinking straight now ... I’ve understood it in two days.”

That might be a hint as to when the call in fact took place. There is then quite a lot of abusive language and the father, at the end of the first page, says:

“Listen to me first. First learn how to clean the house, how to cook, how to respect your husband and how to talk to him. Learn that. Tell your mother to teach you … Learn that for 6 months. When I feel that you have learnt ... when I have started to trust you…I don’t trust you anymore.”

Then the mother protests about he having lost her trust. To which the father says:

“I don’t care. If you don’t trust me, I don’t care. Don’t live with me. Go on. I don’t care. If you want to live with me, then you will have to live my way. I don’t know any mother of yours. I don’t know any brother of yours. I don’t know any sister of yours. Whether they are billionaires, trillionaires, millionaires, whatever they are they are in their own house. I will live my way in my house. You are my wife. You have to spend your life with me. If you want to spend your life with me, then prove to me in 6 months that you care about your husband. You need to learn what they call the husband in Islam, what his place is and what respect he commands, what parents’ place is and what respect they commands.”

The mother then asks:

“When have I been disrespectful to your parents?”

To which the father replied:

“My father once told me not to curse again. I accepted that I must not. That’s how you should treat your parents. If my father had told me to hand the passport over there, then I would have done it.”

Later on the same page, the father said:

“You need to respect your elders. Your brother didn’t show any respect. Your mum showed no respect. You showed no respect to any older person that was speaking and that was your elder. You had no respect for those younger than you either. You didn’t even have any respect for yourself.”

The mother said:

“Listen to me. Tell me about the respect you showed to my mum. You called her a bitch and what-not else. That’s the respect you showed. In contrast, I called your father and told him that he was my father. Look at my respect and compare it to yours.”

The father then said:

“I saw your respect at the airport.”

To which the mother replied:

“Even then, I did not swear. Even then, I was begging.”

A bit further on the mother comments that she has spoken to his father and that she had been polite to him. She said:

“Tell me whose fault it is. He told me that both of us are at fault. That’s what he told me.”

She goes on:

“I am also accepting my mistakes but that does not mean that you should start swearing.  Swearing at my sister, mother, everyone. You have called me a whore and what-not. Tell me, if you are so miserable with me, what character flaw did you find in me? What did you see?”

To which the father replied:

“When you want to go to your parents’ house, you don’t even tell anyone where you are going, let alone ask for permission.”

There is then a comment about whether she can come and go at home. The father continues:

“That is what you have to learn. That is what you’ll learn there. That is what you have to learn. It is not my responsibility to call and ask you where you are going. It is your responsibility to call me and tell me. In fact you should ask permission from me. That I want to go to this place today, may I do so? That is your responsibility. You are my wife. I am not yours. These are the things you have to learn. This is the respect you need to learn. 

The day you learn these things, I will come get you myself. On top of that, it comes down to the issue of trust again. My trust will grow slowly over time. I don’t trust you not to do the same things again when you go there. And if you don’t delete the emails you have sent to your sister, I will go report it to the police … That you have stolen my documents.”

There are then further complaints and the father continues:

“If I have to come home and wash the dishes and do all the house work, then what is your purpose?”

To which the mother replies:

“When have you washed the dishes? Did I not ask you each time you were washing the dishes to step back and let me do it? I’ll do it.”

And he says:

“Listen! Your husband loves cleanliness. Your husband has told you that ten times.”

He goes on:

“The kitchen was filthy. These are the things you need to learn. Ask your mother to teach you how to live with your husband. You need to learn all these things in 6 months. Your husband does not want to see a single dirty dish in the kitchen before going to sleep. You need to wash every single one before going to sleep. You need to collect all your husband’s dirty clothes from every week or every five days yourself and wash them. You have to wash them … Your husband only eats at 6 pm every 24 hours.”

The father is then critical of the mother and says:

“… you have had tea at 5 pm and are not hungry at six? You need to change your routine.  You need to synchronise your routine with mine. If your husband wants tea immediately after food, then you have to make two cups of tea and sit and drink with him at 6 pm. Who are you to say that you don’t drink tea with your food? … If you learn every single thing I have said in 6 months, then I will come and pick you up … That is my only condition.”

The mother then makes the comment that he wants a housemaid rather than a wife. She says:

‘You have never said it like this to me. You should have explained it to me with love; you should have said: “S, I have this problem …” You always said that I am very nice and have no problems. I am this. I am that. You want me to smile. You want to do this and that. You put your hand on the Quran…the thing I am most disappointed about is that you put your hand on the Quran and made a fake vow.’

The father replies:

“I have never made a fake vow. What right does your brother have to ask for the passports of me and my child?”

The mother replies:

“He has no right, but I do ...”

The father continues:

“What right does your brother have to ask for my wife’s passport? He told my father to give him the passport and to take [you and the child]. He said that in front of me. I asked him then why should my passport, my child’s passport and my wife’s passport be in his house … This happened to me. This conversation happened in front of me. Even if you pick up the Quran for that, I don’t accept that. This happened in front of me. When he said that to my father, I asked why should my passport, my child’s passport and my wife’s passport be there. And I told you to come home with me. As soon as you walk into the house, I will put all the three passports into your hand.”

She said:

“You did not say that. When you placed your hand on the Quran…You must remember …”

The father then said:

“Come to the house and I will put the passports in your hand.  My passport will not stay at your brother’s or your mother’s house.”

There is then a lot of argument about what he is alleged to have said and she criticised his father.

On the following page, the father continues:

“I am not saying “come back to live with me”. Go. Ditch me. This is a good opportunity to get rid of such filthy person. Why don’t you get rid of me?”

To which the mother said:

“I am only doing this for my child.”

The father replied:

“Not for the child. If you want to live with me, then you will have to live for me. Not for the child. I have some rights. I don’t want a wife who wants to live for the child. If you want to live for the child, then fine, have him and raise him.”

To which she said:

“… what am I doing wrong according to you? Tell me. I have being trying to make myself ‘normal’ for three months now, haven’t I?”

The father replied:

“So this is your ‘trying to be normal’? Scanning all the documents and emailing them to your sister? That is your ‘trying’?”

And she says:

“Just like you are angry now, I was angry then. I did whatever came to my mind.”

He says:

“You were angry right? That’s why I have given you these 6 months.”

And she says:

“What do you want?”

And he replies:

“You are going to stay there for 6 months and learn all these things. If you learn all these things and put your head in the right place, then you can come back to me … It’s alright regardless of whether you accept it or not. The child is with you. He will stay with you. Raise him.”

She says:

“I apologise on behalf of my family. Please forgive me. My child. My poor, innocent child’s life will be incomplete if he lives only with me.  For God’s sake, please think about that. You will find someone else. My child will be left without a father.” 

Later on, father says:

“You were saying in front of my brothers and sisters on the first day that you are just coming back from the mouth of death.”

She says:

“I did not say that.”

She then goes on:

“I am trying my best. I don’t want my family to be destroyed. That is the only reason why I am talking to you … Next time, I won’t do it. I will clean the house. I will do everything.”

Then she says:

“How can I regain your trust? How are you going to start to trust me if I am to live here for 6 months? Or how will I regain my trust for you?”

He replies:

“One can tell from a person’s conversations. In 6 months, your attitude towards my parents, towards me and towards my brothers and sisters will tell whether you want to settle down or not.”

It is a lengthy conversation and a bad tempered one, but it indicates a number of things. The father was discontented with the way the mother had performed as a wife and he was telling her so. He regarded her as a bad housewife. He did not criticise her as a mother. He says that if he had been asked to hand over the passports by his father then he would have done so and that, had she gone to his parents’ home, he would have given the passports to her.

The mother was pleading for a reconciliation for the sake of her child, and it became quite clear that she was thinking about the child. During the course of the conversation, the father referred to the mother’s brother being there at the airport, asking for the three passports to be retained by him while they were in Pakistan. Also, the father said that her brother had told “my father” to give him the passports:

“… he said that to my father, I asked why should my passport, my child’s passport and my wife’s passport be there.”

Again, the father said:

“You were saying in front of my brothers and sisters on the first day that you are just coming back from the mouth of death.”

That was him telling her that not only was he there at the airport but so were his family members. He did not know that he was being recorded, although she did. He was volunteering information. In his evidence he denied the presence of his family. However, from the call it seems her own mother was there and his parents and siblings.

There was a disappointed, discontent and angry father at that airport. He was challenged about the passports. The fact that the father’s own family were there comes from the father himself, even though he now denies it. The mother described the paternal grandmother holding the child in her arms, saying “she was loving him”, meaning cuddling him and no doubt chatting to him in a grandmotherly way. That has a ring of truth about it.

I have to make findings as to what happened, doing the best I can and remembering that I have to apply the civil test as to the balance of probabilities; is it more likely that something happened or not? I have listened to the arguments from both parties and I come to the very firm view that the mother arrived in Pakistan deeply fearful that the father was going to dump her there. She tried to satisfy herself that all would be well.

I accept that she photographed and sent copies of the passports to her sister “to be on the safe side”, as she said, because then at least they would have valuable information: her passport, her visa to this country and evidence as to the two passports of H and the father, which are British. The mother says in the conversation on the telephone that she persuaded the father to swear on the Quran that he would bring her back and give her the passports whilst they were in Pakistan.

The content of that telephone call was that of an angry man and of a mother who was wanting some form of reconciliation for the sake of her child, which the father rejected. He wanted something else. He wanted a wife who would be there for him and not try and make things work for the sake of the child. She was the one asking to keep the marriage going.

I find that the father intended to keep those passports whilst he was in Pakistan, and I find that he retained them for his own purposes. At this time, the marriage was in difficulties, maybe broken down irretrievably, I know not. The father was dissatisfied. It was he who invented the story and the need to go to Pakistan, with a view of keeping the passports when he got there. The plan was that the child would go to the paternal family and the father, having the passports and the ability to change tickets, would return to this country with his son. The mother would not be able to return to the United Kingdom if the father held the passports and sought to ensure she would not be able to enter this country because he had sought to cancel her visa. It was his plan to leave her behind, but it failed.

I accept that the grandmother held her grandson. I also accept that the grandson was recovered by the mother’s brother.

I am making a finding against the father. Frankly, he has lied to me. He has lied to me about big issues and those lies amounted to a plan to strand the mother in Pakistan, to bring this child back without the mother. It is callous and cruel.

He himself more recently has said in correspondence that the child could be sent here to the United Kingdom and that he would love the child for two people. In effect, that would mean that the mother would have no role in the child’s life. That is callous to say the least.

I am also concerned about the Pakistani litigation, instituted a week after the first hearing in this court. The paternal grandmother seeks custody of her grandson. She seeks interim contact. I have already referred to her statement, where she makes the comment that the relationship between the parents had turned “sour” whilst they were in the United Kingdom. She has made use of H’s ID card, or made a copy of it, that was sent to her or the grandfather by the father after he returned to this country and he received it.

I am satisfied that the father is fully aware of what is going on in Pakistan. He knows that the grandmother, his own mother, is seeking to remove H from his mother. It is very clear on the face of the papers, that she is seeking custody of her grandson from the mother. She has made it clear in her second statement, which might be a petition under section 25. It is setting out her case:

“That because of [an unconducive] atmosphere, neglect and carelessness of the Respondent [who is the mother] towards the child, not only the physical but mental health of the child is in a very dangerous condition and there [is a] strong apprehension of further deterioration … if [the child] is not taken from there.”

Then it says:

“That the petitioner [who is the paternal grandmother] is not being allowed to even see [the] child [and] demands that [the] interim custody may be given to the petitioner by this honourable court.”

The father told me that he is in weekly conversation with his parents, usually over the weekend when he is not working. It is inconceivable that he is not kept up to date as to what is happening. I find he has a considerable input in the Pakistani litigation, although he is not a party.

It has been suggested by his mother’s solicitor that he is not able to be joined as a party and that he cannot meddle in this litigation.

I find that somewhat surprising. He is the legitimate father of this child and he has an important status in Sharia law as the father. However, for his own reasons, it seems to me that he prefers to stand back from this litigation and not join in, not be a party and not seek to play any part in these proceedings.

The mother’s Pakistani solicitor has put in a report to indicate that he is entitled, if he wishes, to be a part of the Pakistani litigation. I have two different reports, one from the grandmother’s solicitor and one from the mother’s solicitor. I am not a Pakistani lawyer, but I am surprised that the father is not able to become a party or an intervenor in those proceedings, bearing in mind that he is the father of this child.

I have made findings against the father of a very serious nature. That concludes my judgment.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -