MA v FA and Ors (Findings of Fact: Rape, Stranding, and Abuse) [2026] EWHC 1514 (Fam)

[2026] EWHC 1514 (Fam)

Case No FD25P00126

Date 18/06/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION

Before

MR JUSTICE POOLE

The Applicant

(1) FA

(2) GH

(3) JK

The Respondents

MA v FA and Ors (Findings of Fact: Rape, Stranding, and Abuse)

Between

MAClaimant

FA and Ors (Findings of Fact: Rape, Stranding, and Abuse)Defendant

Hearing Hearing dates: 11-15 May 2026

Ruth Kirby KC and Martha Gray (instructed by Dawson Cornwell) for the Applicant

Jibreel Tramboo (instructed by MT UK Solicitors) for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 18 June 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

.............................

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.

Introduction

[1]This case involves an allegation of stranding by the first respondent, assisted by the second and third respondents, of the applicant in Pakistan. In Re A (Children: Fact-Finding: Appeal)

[2019] EWCA Civ 74

;

[2019] 1 FLR 1175

Moylan LJ said this: “70. Transnational Marriage Abandonment: The expression "transnational marriage abandonment" appears in Practice Direction 12J of the Family Proceedings Rules 2010 which deals with "Domestic Abuse and Harm". It states: "3. For the purposes of this Practice Direction - "domestic abuse" includes any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass, but is not limited to, psychological, physical, sexual, financial, or emotional abuse. Domestic abuse also includes culturally specific forms of abuse including, but not limited to, forced marriage, honour-based violence, dowry-related abuse and transnational marriage abandonment. "abandonment" refers to the practice whereby a husband, in England and Wales, deliberately abandons or "strands" his foreign national wife abroad, usually without financial resources, in order to prevent her from asserting matrimonial and/or residence rights in England and Wales. It may involve children who are either abandoned with, or separated from, their mother". It is clear from the Practice Direction that the words abandonment and stranding are not terms of art and that they are not intended to be applied in a formulaic manner. This is because there are a number of ways in which a spouse might be said to have been abandoned or stranded abroad or in which the other spouse might have sought to achieve this. I would agree with Mr Gration when he submitted that cases can include many differing elements which militates against their being placed in distinct categories. 71. The core feature of the concept of stranding or abandonment is the exploitation or the attempted exploitation by one spouse of the other's vulnerability or weakness to seek to ensure that they are not able to come to or return to the UK. As Peter Jackson J (as he then was) said in ZM v AM

[2014] EWHC 2110 (Fam)

, at [1], it can be the "opportunity" the secure immigration status of one spouse and the insecure immigration status of the other gives "the former to exploit the latter's weakness". However, as PD12J makes clear, it is based more generally on "controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse". 78. As set out above, stranding is a broad concept and can include any action taken by a spouse which puts obstacles in the way of the other spouse being able to return to the UK. In some respects, it matters not whether the attempt is successful or not. Even if not successful it could still support a conclusion of controlling or coercive behaviour as referred to in PD 12J."

[2]The applicant (“MA”) is the mother and the first respondent (“FA”) the father of AA, a girl born in England in November 2023. The second and third respondents (“GH” and “JK”) are, respectively, a friend of FA and GH’s mother. GH and JK live in England but have family in a village in Pakistan where MA also lived. They arranged a marriage between FA and MA. The wedding took place in Pakistan in February 2023. GH and JK attended. MA was aged 20 and FA 38. They are both Christian. MA had never left Pakistan and spoke little English. FA was born in Sudan of Egyptian parents and had lived in England since he was aged 8. He spoke no Urdu. He had never visited Pakistan before travelling there for the wedding. He spent two weeks there before returning to England. In that short period MA became pregnant with AA. She entered the UK on a spousal visa on 9 August 2023 when about 27 weeks pregnant. She and FA lived together in his house in Hampshire. Within ten weeks of arrival she was living in a women’s refuge having alleged that FA had caused burns to her body and had raped her multiple times. She gave birth to AA and remained with her new baby in the refuge until moving back in with FA in January 2024 after the police had decided to take no further action against him in relation to MA’s allegations.

[3]MA’s father in Pakistan died in February 2024 and she wished to visit her family there. FA arranged a flight for her but AA did not have any travel documents and so MA flew alone to Pakistan in August 2024 leaving AA in the care of FA. In fact, within a few days he had placed AA in the care of GH and JK in Manchester, visiting at weekends. Both MA and FA say that the trip to Pakistan was intended to be for two to three weeks but MA remained there until on 23 September 2024 she was robbed. Her Pakistan passport and her British travel documentation were stolen. On the same day FA wrote to social services complaining that MA had physically abused AA and that he had recordings of her doing so from cameras placed within their home. Two weeks later he wrote to the Home Office to report that the marriage had irretrievably broken. As a result, MA’s spousal visa was cancelled. MA could not return to England. She remains in Pakistan whilst AA remains in England, now living with FA in Hampshire. The parties are still married.

[4]This judgment follows a finding of fact hearing. On 30 April 2025, Mr Justice Keehan refused applications for the second and third respondents to be discharged as parties to the proceedings. He requested the Home Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to assist in any required arrangements to allow MA to attend England for the hearings, including by expediting any visa application and/or waiving visa fees and by providing MA with emergency travel documents if required. That request was repeated in later case management orders. Keehan J directed a s7 report by Hampshire County Council and listed the hearing for the end of June 2025. The hearing was then vacated and relisted for October 2025 with directions that FA disclosed forthwith all home recording devices and storage media including SD cards and original footage from the devices between 9 May 2024 and 20 August 2024. He gave permission to MA to instruct Cyfor, a company providing digital forensic scientific evidence, to analyse the devices and material.

[5]The case first came before me on the mother’s application for an urgent Pre Trial Review after it was discovered that FA had not disclosed all the SD cards he had in his possession. I recorded that “In addition the first respondent says he kept a home recording device in a cupboard/storeroom.” I directed disclosure of the further material and for forensic analysis of it by Cyfor.

[6]By my order of 9 October 2025, I repeated the request to the Home Office and the FCDO to assist in any required arrangements to allow the mother to attend the hearings in the case noting that it was “essential that the applicant mother was able to attend in person”.

[7]Due to lack of court availability, the finding of fact hearing was not listed until 11 May 2026 and due to a combination of factors for which the court bears a large proportion of responsibility, it was only at the opening of the hearing that schedules of allegations were submitted and I directed what allegations required determination. In short, the mother’s allegations are: 7.1. Stranding: the father, in collusion with GH and JK, planned to strand the mother in Pakistan. The father purchased her a one-way ticket and, after the robbery in which her passport and British Resident Permit (“BRP”) and other documents were taken, he cancelled her UK spousal visa, blocked her telephone number and ensured she was unable to return to England. 7.2. Domestic abuse: the father subjected the mother to emotional psychological, sexual, physical and financial abuse throughout the marriage after her arrival in the UK in August 2023. He locked her in the home and deprived her of money and housekeys, threatening permanent separation from AA if she contacted the police. He caused burn injuries to her. 7.3. Rape. The father repeatedly raped the mother between August and October 2023 and again after she returned home in January 2024. The mother believes the father drugged her so he could rape her and covertly record her. 7.4. Voyeurism. The father secretly installed cameras and other recording devices in the matrimonial home and covertly recorded the mother in their bedroom including during intimate moments. He restrained the mother sometimes tying her hands to facilitate recordings. He took indecent images of her without her consent which have circulated in her village in Pakistan. 7.5. Arranging the robbery in Pakistan. The respondents together colluded in arranging for the mother to be robbed in Pakistan on 23 September 2024, the robbery being carried out by a relative of the second respondent. 7.6. Failed to support the mother’s relationship with AA. By stranding her in Pakistan and by initially cutting off all contact and then consistently failing to facilitate contact as ordered, the father has failed to support the mother-daughter relationship.

[8]The father’s allegations are, in summary form: 8.1. The mother physically abused AA by slapping her in the face, hitting her on the back of the head, shaking her, slamming her on the bed, and force feeding her when she was aged 6 to 9 months (this was between May and August 2024). 8.2. The mother emotionally abused AA by being aggressive towards her, screaming and shouting at her repeatedly, and raising her hand to threaten to hit her: from January 2024 to August 2024. 8.3. The mother was threatening and aggressive towards the first respondent, screaming at him in the period from January 2024 onwards.

[9]I have heard oral evidence from MA, FA, GH, and JK. The mother had to give evidence remotely from Pakistan with the help of an interpreter (although she speaks English quite well, she needed an interpreter to participate fully and give her best evidence). The connection to Pakistan was less than ideal, broke down several times, and it was a struggle at times to ensure that the court could hear her. Frequent breaks were offered to MA but she mostly chose to continue. The courtroom was arranged so that she could not see the respondents on camera when she was giving her evidence. JK also gave evidence through an interpreter. She and the other respondents gave evidence in person in court.

[10]A large bundle of documents was prepared for the hearing including links to a number of video recordings from cameras/devices installed by FA in the family home in England, but other documents were produced during the hearing including documents related to the father’s communications with the Home Office in October 2024, when the mother was in Pakistan, and in October 2025 after the court had requested the assistance of the Home Office to secure the mother’s attendance in person at future hearings. Assessments by Manchester City Council were also produced to the court during the hearing. Legal Framework Findings of Fact

Legal Framework

[11]Numerous judgments including those of Baker J in A Local Authority v(1) Mother

(2) Father

(3) L & M (Children, by their Children's Guardian)

[2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)

, Peter Jackson J in Re BR (Proof of Fact)

[2015] EWFC 41

, and MacDonald J in in Re A Local Authority v W and others

[2020] EWFC 68

establish the following principles and approaches which, adapting for a private law fact finding, are applicable to the present case: 11.1. The burden of proof lies on the person who brings the proceedings and identifies the findings they invite the court to make. 11.2. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, Re B

[2008] UKHL 35

. If the standard is met, the fact is proved. If it is not met, the fact is not proved. The law operates a binary system in this respect. 11.3. There is no burden on a parent to produce an alternative explanation and where an alternative explanation for an injury or course of conduct is offered, its rejection by the court does not establish the applicant's case. 11.4. The inherent probability or improbability of an event should be weighed when deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred but regard to inherent probabilities does not mean that where a serious allegation is in issue, the standard of proof required is higher. 11.5. Findings of fact must be based on evidence not suspicion or speculation - Munby LJ in Re A (A child) (Fact Finding Hearing: Speculation)

[2011] EWCA Civ 12

. 11.6. The court must take into account all the evidence and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. Evidence cannot be “evaluated and assessed in separate compartments”: per Butler-Sloss P in Re T

[2004] EWCA Civ 558

[2004] 2 FLR 838

at paragraph 33. 11.7. The opinions of medical experts need to be considered in the context of all the other evidence: see In A County Council v KD & L

[2005] EWHC 144

Fam at paragraphs 39 to 44. As observed by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss President in Re U, Re B

[2004] EWCA Civ 567

, "The judge … must never forget that today's medical certainty may be discarded by the next generation of experts or that scientific research may throw a light into corners that are at present dark". 11.8. It is not uncommon for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for various reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress and the fact that the witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything: see R v Lucas

[1981] QB 720

. In the recent Court of Appeal judgment in A, B, and C (Children)

[2021] EWCA 451

, Macur LJ advised at [57], "I venture to suggest that it would be good practice when the tribunal is invited to proceed on the basis, or itself determines, that such a direction is called for, to seek Counsel's submissions to identify: (i) the deliberate lie(s) upon which they seek to rely; (ii) the significant issue to which it/they relate(s), and (iii) on what basis it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie(s) is guilt. The principles of the direction will remain the same, but they must be tailored to the facts and circumstances of the witness before the court." 11.9. Similar caution should be exercised in relation to a respondent giving unsatisfactory explanations or failing to give any explanation for the allegations made against them - the fact that they are unsatisfactory or missing may not be probative of the truth of the allegations or of the culpability of the respondent. 11.10. In Lancashire County Council v M and F

[2014] EWHC 3

Peter Jackson J made the following observations about assessing credibility which apply equally to this case as they do to cases of serious physical injury to or death of a child:

"… in cases where repeated accounts are given of events surrounding injury and death, the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of any reported discrepancies. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is of course that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record keeping or recollection of the person hearing or relaying the account. The possible effects of delay and repeated questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one person of hearing accounts given by others. As memory fades, a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural - a process that might inelegantly be described as "story-creep" may occur without any necessary inference of bad faith." 11.11. In Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147 at [11] and [12], Macur LJ cautioned that: "

Any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so".

History of Events

[12]I have set out a brief summary in the introduction but a more detailed account is required. I am grateful to Counsel for MA for providing a written chronology which has assisted the court.

[13]FA moved to England aged 8. He works as a security guard and uses CCTV equipment. He met GH when they were both students but the oral evidence they gave about how and when they met was vague. FA became and has remained very close to GH and his family. They have looked after his daughter for long periods. JK not only arranged the marriage between FA and MA but she travelled to Pakistan to meet MA’s family for the purpose. FA and MA became engaged online in 2022 and the wedding took place on 7 February 2023 in person in Pakistan. MA became pregnant during FA’s visit to Pakistan for the wedding – his only ever visit to Pakistan. She was granted a spousal visa valid from 25 July 2023 to 25 April 2026 and arrived in England on 9 August 2023. Initially, she and FA lived in Manchester at the home of GH and JK. MA knew no-one else in this country on her arrival.

[14]After a short while FA and MA moved to FA’s home in Hampshire. MA complains that when he went to work, FA would lock her in the house. He disputes that allegation. She says that she knew no-one other than her husband. She says that she had no access to any money. On 29 August 2023, MA attended hospital to book in for maternity care. She was accompanied by FA. It was recorded, “Transfer from Pakistan at ?30+3… EDD 04/11/23… [MA] reports that the scar on her wrist and abdomen is due to burning herself whilst cooking”. MA says that this was untrue. She maintains that the burns were caused deliberately by FA to coerce her into having sex with him but that she could not say that in front of him at the appointment. MA says that the burn to her wrist was caused when FA pushed it onto a flame on the cooker hob, and the burns to her abdomen were caused when he put hot metal cooking tongs against her (she was wearing clothes that exposed her abdomen). FA denies that he caused the injuries and avers that they were caused accidentally by MA herself when she was cooking.

[15]MA alleges that throughout the period from her arrival in England to 24 October 2023, FA would daily force her to have sex. He would physically struggle with her. This happened sometimes four times a day.

[16]On 23 or 24 October 2023 (the date is not clear from the records), MA was admitted to hospital with stomach pains. FA says that MA contacted him when he was at work and was “frantic” about pain in her abdomen. He took her to hospital. In a police record it is noted:

“Whilst in the Hospitals care, staff obtained growing concerns for MA due to the way she behaved when her husband was there, compared with how she interacted once he left. When he was not visiting she was open and chatty however in his company she became quiet and withdrawn. They were also concerned about a previous A&E attendance for pain after having burn marks on her wrists and abdomen which she stated was from cooking. During this stay with the Hospital the midwife was able to speak with MA alone. MA cried and said that she couldn’t speak to her about what was happening. The midwife continued speaking to MA who eventually opened up and made several serious disclosures regarding her relationship with husband FA. It was reported that FA’s behaviour changed after the arranged marriage and move to the UK. MA stated that her parents are old and poor and that they wanted the marriage. She explained that FA “USES HER BODY FOR SEX, IN THE WRONG WAY” and that he forces her when she does not want it and when it hurts. The midwife told MA that she was worried about the burns on her wrists and abdomen from when she was last in A&E a few weeks prior. When asked how she got these burns MA told the midwife that FA told her to say it was from cooking however, they were actually caused by FA who burnt her “WITH FIRE” because she did not want to have sex. It was also reported by the Hospital that MA wants to go home to see her parents however FA will not allow her. FA does not love MA and is just using her to have children of which he has demanded 3. FA will not allow her to have a job, will not allow her to have money and she is completely reliant on him. MA panicked and stated that she does not want the Hospital to let him know that she has spoken to them or he will take away her phone and passport. WITNESS ASSESSMENT BOOKLET Police attempted to complete the booklet with MA however it was extremely difficult given the climate and ongoing situation. MA is extremely vulnerable, afraid and childlike in her mannerisms. It is strongly suggested that an Appropriate Adult is utilised when obtaining her account. The Hospital disclosures were mirrored by MA however she appears to not understand the gravity of what is happening to her. She is terrified of repercussions from FA and the family / friends surrounding him /involved in the wedding. The summary of the initial conversation with MA can be found here; Police attended and MA mirrored many of the aforementioned disclosures by the Hospital. She stated that FA has raped her multiple times, with the most recent being Monday. FA has told her that he is her husband and can have sex with her when he wants to, despite her saying that it hurt and that she didn’t want to. MA was incredibly worried about what was going to happen to FA, stating that he will blame her for him being arrested after speaking to midwives at hospital. She also stated that she was worried that he will take her phone and her passport away from her. MA appeared genuinely fearful and was looking around in a confused manner with a wide eyed expression. MA was “FULLY DEPENDANT” on her husband and does not have access to any money without asking him for it. FA does not want her to have a job or money and the only time she ever leaves the house is to go to her medical appointments with him. Outside of this, she stays at home because FA “WANTS TO HIDE HER”

. MA expressed that she is incredibly mentally damaged due to ongoing incidents in her life. She said that her mother is sick and her sister died a few days prior. Whist explaining that she wants to go back to Pakistan, MA began to cry as she explained that when she married FA, she made a promise to God that she would be with him for life.”

WITNESS ASSESSMENT BOOKLET

[17]MA was discharged from hospital on 26 October 2023 to a women’s refuge with her agreement. In a police interview, and subsequently, MA continued to express her fear of leaving FA and her wish to reunite with him as his wife. She spoke of wishing to withdraw her allegations to enable her to return to him. FA was arrested. He gave a “no comment” interview and asked that GH be notified. The conditions of his police bail prevented him from contacting MA but over the subsequent period MA reported contact from GH and JK. FA told police that he was very worried about MA and that she may be at risk of harming herself or the baby. FA later reported to police that MA was trying to contact him. MA told the refuge that she feared that her child would be removed from her at birth by social services. She made a series of 999 calls from the refuge asking to go home. It was reported that another resident at the refuge had received money from a relative of MA, to give to her.

[18]AA was born on 14 November 2023 and mother and baby returned to the refuge. Staff at the refuge recorded concerns that MA was in a “trance-like” state at times, was slow to absorb information, and neglected herself.

[19]Due to MA’s unwillingness to give evidence against FA, the police made a decision on 30 November 2023 that there would be no further action taken against FA on MA’s allegations but neither MA nor FA were informed of that decision at the time. MA was informed on 18 January 2024. MA told police that she would remain at the refuge until AA secured a passport when she would immediately return with her to Pakistan. In fact MA returned with AA to FA’s home on 22 January 2024. In his written witness evidence FA said:

“During this period AA was born but I had no contact with her at the time. I desired and desperately wished to see AA and to have contact with her. I was utterly surprised when the Applicant arrived at our home with AA on 22 January 2024.”

In her statement in response MA said that he could not have been surprised because he had met with her a number of times near the refuge and had begged her to return home. In oral evidence FA admitted that after his bail conditions were lifted he had indeed visited MA on three occasions before she returned home.

[20]FA told the court that he had installed cameras in his home. He has produced recordings from those cameras which are discussed later in this judgment, but his evidence as to which cameras were installed, when and for what purposes, was inconsistent and confusing. He variously said that he had installed them as a security measure to protect the family, to protect AA, to protect MA against accidents, and to protect himself from false allegations by MA against him. He wrote to social services on 23 September 2024 that having discovered “inexplicable marks” on AA’s body, “this led me to installing some surveillance in my own home… I know it sounds wrong and unethical to hide recording devices around my own home, but I felt it was necessary to protect my child and myself…” However, in his statements to the court he has said that MA was fully aware of the cameras because he told her about them – they were not “hidden”. FA also told social services in that letter that the recordings he had watched show MA admitting that the original allegations against him were false and that she made them at the behest of a boyfriend back in Pakistan. None of the recordings produced contain any such admission so far as I can discern. FA told the court that he had watched downloaded video recordings only after MA had left for Pakistan, which was in August 2024. The recordings are relied upon by FA to show abuse by MA of AA over a period from 9 May 2024 to 20 August 2024.

[21]On 9 February 2024, MA’s father died in Pakistan. AA had no passport but MA wanted to travel with AA to Pakistan to be with her family there. Eventually, she travelled alone to Pakistan on 21 August 2024. She says that FA arranged the flight ticket for her and had told her that he was unable to secure a passport for AA. It had been agreed that she would be sent money to assist her when in Pakistan. FA says the ticket purchased was a return ticket with return in 2 to 3 weeks from departure. During the hearing, FA produced a receipt for a return ticket but I have not seen any copies of the tickets themselves. FA went with MA to the airport and appears to have made all the arrangements as well as assisting MA at the airport.

[22]FA says that he had booked two weeks or so off work so that he could look after AA when MA was away, but within about three days of MA’s departure he took AA up to Manchester to stay with GH and JK and left her there with them. MA stayed on in Pakistan expecting her brother’s wedding to take place (although it never did). She was reliant on money which was sent to her by JK via intermediaries. On 23 September 2024, on instructions MA says she received from JK and FA, she travelled to another city in Pakistan to collect some money sent there by JK. She was told to take her passport and BRP. She travelled with a relative of GH and JK called LM, and her own brother. En route some men attacked MA and her brother, but not LM, and stole her documents and mobile phone from her. MA managed to contact JK who told her not to inform FA as he was driving up to her house in Manchester and should not be distracted. FA accepted in his oral evidence that he arrived at GH and JK’s home later that day and was informed of the robbery. He accepted that he told MA that he would arrange a replacement BRP for her but that he did not do so. He also accepted that on the same day as the robbery, from GH and JK’s house, he wrote to Hampshire Social Services to report having found “inexplicable marks” on AA’s body and having obtained “surveillance” recordings which he sent to social services.

[23]The recordings, which I have viewed, are from eight separate days. 23.1. 9 May 2024: a 15 minute film from a camera in the bedroom. MA is sitting on the bed using her phone. FA is mostly walking around. AA is variously sitting with MA or being carried by FA. FA becomes angry and is seen gesticulating. MA has her head in her hands for long periods. At just before seven minutes into the recording MA throws her phone across the room. 23.2. 6 June 2024: a 15 minute film taken in the bedroom beginning at about 10.30 am. Both parents are dressed and walking around. There is a lot of baby equipment around (clothes, bottles etc.) MA begins to dress AA whilst AA is lying on the bed. AA turns onto her tummy and MA raises her voice and throws a pair of AA’s leggings onto the bed in frustration. FA takes over dressing AA. MA looks tired and distant whilst FA is holding AA. The parents argue but it is not a full-blooded argument. MA then begins to tidy up the room. 23.3. 21 June 2024: a 15 minute film taken in the bedroom beginning at 10.16 am. FA is lying on the bed with AA. Both are awake. After about 7 minutes he picks up AA and places her in a cot. He then tries to give her a bottle of milk. AA starts to cry. MA enters the bedroom. After a while she begins to make the bed. At 13 minutes 30 seconds, FA lifts AA out of the cot and places her on the bed. AA starts to cry. MA appears to be scowling and leans over and puts the flat of her hand against AA’s cheek. I would not describe this as a slap. Indeed FA makes a similar motion in one of the earlier videos. It is a wave of the hand with the palm open flat, descending onto and gently touching the child’s cheek. 23.4. 30 July 2024: three recordings beginning at 12.03 pm, 12.18 pm, and 12.28 pm. All are filmed in the bedroom. 23.4.1. In the first, both parents are lying in bed and AA is in her cot beside the bed. MA is lying with her feet near to the bed head with her head next to AA’s cot. AA is crying and seeking attention. At about four minutes into the recording, MA shakes AA’s cot, not gently but not violently. She appears to be affectionate with AA. The picture is grainy but MA appears to me to be smiling when she uses the flat of her left palm to brush AA’s cheek. This is not a slap. However at 5 minutes 40 seconds into the film she puts her left hand on AA’s head and then taps her baby’s left ear with her right hand. MA then lifts AA out of her cot and holds her beside her on the bed. FA is still lying in bed with his head at the bed head end. He is clearly seen to be awake at points during the film. At others his eyes are closed and he may or may not be asleep. MA tries to put a bottle in AA’s mouth and she does so roughly. She repeatedly slaps AA on the arm – not hard but not playfully either. AA appears to settle and to drink the bottle of milk whilst being held by MA. AA then sits up on the bed and MA sits up next to her. MA then puts AA in the cot and takes her out again, once more handling her roughly. Back on the bed with AA, MA slaps her on the back – not very hard – and then brushes her flat palm against AA’s cheek. 23.4.2. The second film is a continuation of the first but lasting only 9 minutes 55 seconds. The parents are lying down with heads at opposite ends of the bed and AA is sitting up in the middle of the bed and then rolling on the bed. MA again brushes her hand against AA’s cheek but it is done quickly. It is not a hard slap but it does not appear to be affectionate either. FA then gets out of bed after which MA distinctly slaps AA on the cheek repeatedly making her cry. She also slaps her on the back of the head. At 4 minutes 40 seconds she holds up her left hand to show to AA and then hits her on the cheek with her right hand. She picks up AA and then slaps her on the cheek with her right hand. She scowls at AA and repeatedly slaps her on her arm. She puts her roughly down on the bed and slaps her cheek. She grabs her by her shoulders and slaps her again. This is not at all playful, it is difficult to watch. At about 6 minutes 30 seconds she shouts at AA. 23.4.3. In the third video recorded on 30 July 2024, once again taken in the bedroom, MA sits on the bed next to AA in her cot and nothing untoward occurs. 23.5. 7 August 2024: a 15 minute film taken downstairs from a camera that may well have been plugged into a low level socket near to the floor. It begins at 4.11 pm. FA can be seen in a reflection in the window – he is sitting down. MA is standing in the foreground and AA is sitting on the floor. MA picks up a baby stroller and throws it down. 23.6. 14 August 2024: there are three films beginning at 11.10 am, 12.22 pm and 4.40 pm. 23.6.1. The first film is taken in the bedroom. AA is in her cot and the parents are in the bed. MA’s head is near the cot at the foot of the bed, FA is sleeping with his head near to the bed head. MA takes AA out of the cot to lie with her on the bed. AA is not settling. MA raises her left arm holding the flat of her palm over AA then she lowers it again. A little later MA springs up and smacks AA on the bottom and her arm. 23.6.2. In the second film, again taken in the bedroom, FA is seen apparently asleep in the bed. No-one else is in the room but MA and AA can be heard. MA raises her voice at more than one point whilst AA is crying. FA appears to remain asleep. 23.6.3. In the third video, again taken in the bedroom, MA and AA are in the bed. AA is crying and MA handles her roughly and seeks to distract her with a game on a screen. MA then gently strokes AA’s head. AA plays contentedly on the bed with MA beside her for the next twelve minutes or so. 23.7. 18 August 2024: another 15 minute film taken in the bedroom. FA is asleep at the bed head end of the bed. MA is lying with her head at the foot of the bed playing with AA whom she is holding. MA is rough as she tries to encourage AA to feed from a bottle. She raises the flat of her hand to AA and moves her around very roughly. FA is awake but does not intervene. 23.8. 20 August 2024: there are five films. I can summarise these as being taken at various locations in the house and showing either nothing untoward or MA shouting. She is not shouting in English and I have no transcript. Or if she is shouting in English, I cannot hear what she is saying except that in one film showing her vacuuming, she slams furniture around and can just about be heard saying “I’m not coming back”. In another her shouting is directed at AA who is standing in a playpen crying.

[24]As noted, MA travelled to Pakistan on the day after the last recordings relied upon by FA. FA told me that he did not look at any films recorded by his devices until after MA had left for Pakistan but he had downloaded some of the earlier recordings because he had known they needed to be kept. If recordings were not downloaded, they would be recorded over after a period of time and the film lost. FA said that he could access the cameras and footage at any time from his mobile phone and could watch “live” if he wished to do so. The cameras were activated by motion, he told me, so they would not be recording all day every day. Nevertheless, he will have recorded many hundreds, and possibly thousands of hours of footage on a number of camera devices over the months when they were installed.

[25]MA told me that she was wholly unaware that there were cameras in the house. MA has variously accused FA of manufacturing fake films and of drugging her in order to rape her when asleep, and of covert drugging possibly influencing her behaviour. She maintains that she has no memory of the incidents shown on the films. She says that she always felt sleepy in the house and infers that FA was drugging her. On 6 December 2024 MA visited a Dr Munir in Pakistan with symptoms of agitation, irritability and focal fits which he has recorded as “withdrawal symptoms of some unknown drugs.”

[26]MA alleges that as well as taking sexual images of her on his phone, FA used the cameras to record FA and MA having sex. Images have, she says, circulated in her village in Pakistan and can only have come from FA. He admits to taking photographs on a phone device of MA in sexual poses and of both of them together having sex, but says this was always with her consent. He denies her allegation that he would tie her up for some photographs. He denies sharing the images with anyone else.

[27]As already noted, FA was not fully compliant with court orders for the production of his devices and recordings, thereby causing the vacation of a fixed fact finding hearing and the need for further expert analysis. That expert analysis does not establish that any of the films are faked – the advice is that they are probably not faked.

[28]Having disclosed films to social services on the day of the robbery in Pakistan, FA then submitted a formal application or notice to the Home Office on 7 October 2024 saying that the marriage was over. He accepted that he had not discussed whether the marriage was over with MA. Nor did he tell her that he had notified the Home Office that the marriage had broken down. Indeed he was, at the same time, encouraging her to believe that he was trying to secure a replacement BRP for her so that she could return to him and their daughter in England. He has not produced a copy of what he sent but as a consequence of his notice to the Home Office, MA’s spousal visa was cancelled with effect from 26 October 2024. FA nevertheless paid a fee, via GH, for MA to secure a replacement Pakistani passport.

[29]MA says that her contact with AA by video calls was problematic in late 2024 and that it ceased altogether from 21 November 2024. This was not disputed. MA also told me that the mobile phone she was then using was blocked.

[30]LM, a relative of GH, who had been present at the robbery, reported the robbery to the police in Pakistan but did not mention MA as a victim. MA herself later contacted the police and LM was arrested on the basis that he was party to arranging the robbery. He is said to have admitted this at a village community meeting but he has not been convicted of any involvement. Subsequently there have been a number of proceedings in Pakistan in which, to summarise very briefly, LM is being investigated and prosecuted for arranging the robbery, but in other litigation, which appears to have been funded in part by GH and/or JK, attempts have been made to have him released from detention (he may once have escaped detention in fact), and released from further investigation. Complaints are made by the respondents that MA’s family are maliciously harassing LM, and by MA that LM was instrumental in arranging the robbery at the behest of FA, GH and JK (which they deny).

[31]MA sought assistance from various authorities and then instigated proceedings herein. In March 2025, at a hearing before Keehan J, the respondents confirmed that AA was living in Manchester with GH and JK and that the local authority had recommended that AA live with them subsequent to a s47 enquiry. Contact was re-commenced by orders at that and subsequent hearings but it has not been consistent.

[32]I have a report by Hampshire Police made after FA had submitted his video recordings to Hampshire Social Services. It is noted on 7 October 2024 that a social worker had attended on AA in Manchester and saw no evidence of any injuries to her. “The SW said that having met dad and seen his interactions with AA he believes that he is unable to adequately care for the baby. He described him as being an incompetent [parent] and would be unable to care for the baby on his own.” In fact, notwithstanding those concerns and the s47 enquiry, AA moved to live with FA in March 2025 and a recent s7 report raised no similar concerns about FA’s ability to parent AA.

The Parties

[33]MA was at a disadvantage by having to give evidence remotely from Pakistan. She had to use an interpreter for much of her evidence. She had to view documents on a mobile phone. She is also, on her account, the victim of appalling abuse by her husband and of a robbery and stranding orchestrated by him and the two other respondents. She is undoubtedly a vulnerable party and witness. Concerns were raised at the outset of the hearing, but had not been raised previously, that she might have a cognitive impairment due to a previous head injury but when asked about the injury MA said that she had fully recovered from it and I have no evidence of any long term problems following that injury nor of any form of impairment. Despite the technical and language difficulties she gave her evidence proficiently and refused several offers of breaks during her evidence. However, several aspects of the mother’s background and circumstances were clearly material to her evidence: 33.1. MA was in a vulnerable situation as soon as she came to England. She had entered an arranged marriage with a man almost twice her age. She had become pregnant within days of the wedding and had then been left by him in Pakistan when he returned to England. She had come to England in August 2023 heavily pregnant, knowing no-one here except her new husband whom she had spent no more than two weeks with previously, with no personal financial means and not speaking English as her first language. She had never before been outside Pakistan. Her right to enter and remain in England was as FA’s spouse. 33.2. MA’s vulnerability was exacerbated yet further after a few weeks in England. She gave birth to AA, her first child, whilst living in a women’s refuge. She was completely isolated whilst heavily pregnant and then whilst looking after a newborn baby. Her family were all in Pakistan. Her husband was not permitted to contact her by the conditions of his police bail. It is a well-known trait of some who suffer domestic abuse that they return to their abuser. Here, MA was in an even more vulnerable situation than many others who suffer domestic abuse (as she alleges). She was isolated, had no family or friends close to her on whom she could rely, no financial resources, nowhere to live outside a refuge except with FA, and had a newborn baby. 33.3. MA came from a culture in which she felt pressure to remain with her husband even if he had been abusive. It cannot be inferred from the fact that she did not want to support a prosecution of her husband that her allegations against him of physical and sexual abuse were untruthful.

[34]MA was not cross-examined for more than a very short time about her very serious allegations of repeated rape by FA. This did not give the court an opportunity to gauge her response to questioning about the alleged rapes. I asked her one or two questions about the allegation but did not consider it appropriate for the court to question her at length when Counsel for FA had not done so. In contrast, she was cross-examined in a little more detail about the burning incidents and I found her responses to be telling. She became upset in a way that was congruent with having memories of what she was telling the court. She gave sufficient details and she was direct in her answers.

[35]I should note that MA has made some allegations which are not supported by evidence and which speak to a tendency to speculate. For example, she has alleged that FA has drugged her but there is no evidence to support that allegation. She surmises that she was drugged by him because she felt tired, but at the relevant time she was either heavily pregnant or had a young baby, and so her tiredness was not unexplained. Similarly, MA has not produced any evidence to support her allegation that FA has circulated sexual images of her in her village in Pakistan. I have no evidence from anyone who has seen such images.

[36]I should note also that video recordings do show MA striking her baby daughter. That does not mean that her evidence as a whole is dishonest or unreliable but she does invite the court to accept that she has no memory of acting as shown on the recordings. This may indicate a refusal to accept responsibility or to face the truth.

[37]Furthermore, whatever else the video recordings show, and whatever the circumstances in which they were made, they do not show MA as fearful of FA. It is fair to say that she is shown to be scowling on occasions, distant on others, but not hesitant around FA. However, I must be wary about making assumptions about how she would have behaved in the circumstances she alleges.

[38]MA was not evasive when answering questions in evidence. In general, after seeing and hearing MA give evidence and watching the recording, she struck me as a naïve, even child-like, young woman who views the world in black and white terms peopled by heroes and villains.

[39]FA was very evasive when giving evidence. He appeared diffident and unsure of himself. On many occasions when asked a challenging question he would effectively shrug his shoulders and say he did not know. I found it surprising that he could not give any details of how he met GH, with whom he is obviously very close. He gave inconsistent evidence about why he had installed cameras in the home, when he had done so, and whether MA had known about them. If he was trying to protect himself from false allegations, I doubt that he would have told MA about the presence of the cameras. FA presented himself as unaware of why there might be questions about the timing of his reports to social services about the video recordings, and to the Home Office about the breakdown of the marriage. His sole explanation for most of his conduct was that he was fearful of MA and would do anything to protect AA from her. However, again referring to the video recordings, FA was very relaxed on the films including when in the same room as MA, indeed in the same bed as her, when she was rough with AA. He was not always present but he was on a number of occasions. Furthermore, on his own account, he did not check the recordings until after 21 August 2024, suggesting that he was not too concerned about his daughter’s safety until after MA had left for Pakistan leaving his daughter behind.

[40]Overall, I was very struck by the lack of detail given by FA, by his evasiveness, and by his reliance on GH. Their relationship is a curious one – they are a similar age but FA clearly relies on GH – as he does on JK - for advice, for assistance, and sometimes for money. GH’s mother, JK, even arranged his marriage for him, going to some lengths to do so, including making trips to Pakistan for the purpose. The close bonds between FA, and GH and JK, were not satisfactorily explained. When answering questions in court FA often deflected responsibility for his own actions. It was, he said, the Home Office’s decision to terminate MA’s spousal visa. That is true but the decision was only made because he had given notice to the Home Office of the breakdown of the marriage. He portrayed himself as having almost no agency in the events that have separated his wife from his daughter for over 18 months. Like MA, FA demonstrated a tendency to make an allegation without sufficient evidence to support it, for example about MA having a boyfriend in Pakistan for whom she wanted FA to secure entry to the UK. However, his speculations were not only unsubstantiated but also illogical. Why would MA think that FA would support his wife bringing a boyfriend to the UK? Why would she report him for multiple rapes within weeks of arriving in England to punish him for not helping her to bring the boyfriend to England, as FA suggested. FA also invited the court to believe that MA always intended to stay in Pakistan – she was staying by choice – ignoring the fact that MA’s wish is to be reunited with her daughter who is in England.

[41]It emerged during the hearing that on 16 October 2025 FA wrote to the UK Home Office setting out concerns about MA regarding safeguarding (of AA), immigration fraud and criminal conduct. He referred to evidence of child abuse, attaching links to his recordings, and harassment by her in Pakistan. In a long letter he pleaded for MA to be prevented from returning to the UK even for participation at hearings within these proceedings. He requested the Home Office to reject any visa application by MA, to maintain an active arrest warrant and port alert for her and to encourage remote participation in the proceedings. He wrote this letter notwithstanding orders by the court including mine of 9 October 2025 drawing to the attention of the Home Office and the FCDO that it was “essential that [MA] is able physically to attend and travel to England for the purposes of these proceedings” and requesting their assistance in arrangements to allow her to attend the hearing including expediting any visa application.

[42]FA’s allegation that MA’s entry to the UK had been fraudulent was based on his assertion that she had entered the marriage for an ulterior purpose – to secure her boyfriend’s entry to the UK. However, the marriage was arranged for his benefit by JK.

[43]GH himself was a confident witness, much more authoritative than FA, but he had very clearly defined views of FA and MA. The former could do no wrong, the latter could do no right. He was sure of his assessments of them and would not countenance any alternative view. He used these characterisations as a shield against actually engaging in challenging questions about FA’s conduct and his support for it. Likewise JK, who was a pleasant witness but unquestioning about supporting both GH and FA whom she treats almost as her own son. I found her evidence about the arrangements for sending money to MA when she was in Pakistan very vague and evasive.

Analysis and Conclusions

[44]MA has made some very serious allegations. In relation to her allegations of multiple rapes by FA, I have only her word against his. There is no independent corroboration by way of medical or other evidence. In relation to her allegations of physical abuse by burning, there are medical records of scarring to her wrists and abdomen and I have a photograph of the wrist scarring taken in October 2023, but the circumstances under which they were sustained is only truly known to MA and FA and one of them is not telling the court the truth.

[45]I take into account that MA alleged that FA had abused her physically and sexually at the first opportunity when she could speak to a professional without FA present. Her circumstances were such that, even if she was able to leave the house alone, I would not have expected her to have the knowledge or resources to find a suitable professional to whom she could report the allegations before she was taken to hospital by FA, and then seen alone, in October 2023. Professionals who dealt with her in October 2023 through to January 2024 were clearly very concerned about her and about her having suffered abuse. When she was admitted to hospital in October 2023 professionals noted her behaviour when her husband was present and how that differed when he was absent. They noted the pressures on her. They certainly did not treat her as having made obviously concocted allegations. I have quoted the police account from this time at length earlier in the judgment because it provides a very helpful insight into how MA was presenting at the time she initially made the allegations I now have to consider. It appears to me that she appeared to professionals at the time as being authentic.

[46]FA had placed cameras in the family home including in the bedroom directly facing the double bed he and MA shared. He recorded very many hours of footage on these devices. MA says that she was unaware of their presence. FA has said different things at different times about when and why he installed the devices and whether MA was aware. He has said both that they were “hidden” cameras but also that MA was fully aware of them. In oral evidence he told me that he had spoken to MA about them but perhaps she had not heard him. That was a curious and highly unlikely explanation. He has admitted to taking sexual images of MA on a mobile phone but denies sharing them with others. MA has asserted, without any evidence from anyone who has seen them, that sexual images of her have circulated in her village in Pakistan and that FA is responsible for that.

[47]The surveillance films of MA are not always easy to watch. She undoubtedly handles AA roughly and strikes her on the arm, face, and back in temper. Other films show her shouting and, on occasion, shouting in apparent temper, including at AA. The evidence does not allow me to find that the films are faked. I am unable to find that FA had drugged MA and that drugs account for her conduct. There is simply no evidence to establish the drugging allegation on the balance of probabilities.

[48]Nevertheless, what I have seen on the films is a young, first time mother, away from home in a new and wholly unfamiliar country with a new, much older husband, struggling with looking after a new baby. I do not have expert medical evidence but using common knowledge and experience, even though MA strikes AA she does not do so in a way that I would expect to have caused any bruising let alone any permanent injury – perhaps some temporary redness only. FA has adduced some photographs of AA purporting to show injuries he suggests MA caused. One image shows some red marks to her lower back which could have been caused by a stroller, a seat, or any number of other ways. Others show mottling of AA’s cheeks only, not any obvious injuries of any kind. FA says it was these injuries that first alerted him to MA abusing AA. I do not believe that they would cause anyone to suspect physical child abuse. The marks to AA’s back are not suspicious and the images of her cheeks do not show any obvious injuries. I am also mindful that the only evidence of aggressive slapping is contained in the films recorded on 30 July 2024. There is rough handling on other occasions and smacking of the bottom and possibly arm on 14 August 2024. However, FA was filming the bedroom constantly for several months and has adduced no other evidence of physical abuse of AA by MA.

[49]The films as a whole show me that MA was struggling at times to cope with her baby. She had no support. Although at times the films show FA holding the baby, for long periods on the recordings he is seen lying inert in the bed when MA is trying unsuccessfully to soothe AA. I have no idea how long AA had been awake during the night before or how much sleep MA had had but she looks tired and is often scowling. At times she looks as though she is staring into the distance. The recordings have been in the control of FA – he has chosen to preserve these recordings but there will have been many hours of film which were not preserved. I do not know from observing the films what preceded or followed the recordings. They are snapshots only, and ones which he has chosen to disclose.

[50]MA’s behaviour in striking AA is unacceptable. I was particularly troubled by the incident where she raises a hand to AA, draws AA’s attention to it as she holds it over her, and then strikes her quickly with the other hand. That was cruel. I am also troubled that MA has not taken any responsibility for her conduct. She has told the court that she cannot remember acting in that way and she has suggested that FA has faked the footage or had drugged her, neither of which I accept. She might have acknowledged her wrongdoing and sought to explain it by her circumstances but she has not done that. I regret that she has not done so because it seems to me that her circumstances go some way to providing an explanation, although not an excuse for her few incidents of physical abuse of AA. What I have seen does, on 30 July 2024 and momentarily on 14 August 2024, amount to physical abuse of a child. I am sure that MA acted in that way and I am sure that she knows she did. She should have admitted it but has chosen not to do so. I find her assertion that she has no memory of ever behaving as shown in the videos to be dishonest.

[51]I am sure that MA would not have behaved as she did in front of a camera trained at her bed had she known the camera was there. I am sure that FA installed the camera in the bedroom without informing MA and that it was, as he has said, “hidden”. Other cameras in the house may have been overt but I am satisfied that the bedroom camera on which most of the recordings were made, was covertly installed and that MA did not know it was there. FA has said that the camera was motion sensitive: it started recording when there was movement in the room. Although they give different accounts of their sexual relations, both FA and MA accept that they had sexual intercourse and no-one has suggested that it never took place in the bedroom. I am satisfied that the bedroom camera was certainly in place from at least the beginning of May 2024 and probably from soon after MA returned to the home at the end of January 2024. As such, the hidden bedroom camera will have covertly recorded MA and FA in bed, including at times of sexual intimacy or, on MA’s case, rape. I do not have sufficient evidence to allow me to conclude that FA has shared those films with anyone else but I am satisfied that he has covertly recorded himself and MA having sex in their marital bed.

[52]I bear in mind my conclusion that MA has been dishonest when saying she does not remember slapping or roughly handling her baby, but I am satisfied that she has been dishonest because she cannot accept responsibility for acting in that way. It does not follow that all her evidence is tainted by dishonesty. I was struck by the apparent authenticity with which MA answered questions about the two burn injuries she says she sustained as a result of force applied to her by FA. The incidents were, she told me, two or three days apart and occurred when she had refused sex with FA. These injuries were caused within three weeks of her arriving in England. It is clear from the medical evidence that MA had two apparent burn injuries seen by a healthcare professional on 29 August 2023. She said then that they were accidental injuries but, as noted in the record, FA was with her when she saw the healthcare professional that day. When she was next seen by a healthcare professional and in the absence of FA, in October 2023, she said that he had caused them. Her evidence about how he caused the injuries has been consistent since then.

[53]MA’s evidence about the robbery in Pakistan has also been consistent. JK accepted that she had made arrangements for MA to pick up cash which she said she had arranged to be delivered to her by a man in Pakistan. JK’s evidence about the arrangements was vague but she did dispute that MA was told to bring all her travel ID including her BRP with her. Clearly, there was a robbery – there is no dispute about that. Clearly, MA had her documentation including her BRP stolen otherwise she could have used it to return. It would not be unusual for some form of identification evidence to be required when picking up cash, but it is striking that MA had all her travel documentation and her BRP stolen. I accept that she was told by someone to bring everything with her. There is no dispute that there was a robbery in which the documentation was stolen and that it happened when MA was en route to meet a man as arranged by JK. The initial police report from GH and JK’s relative, LM, did not mention MA as a victim. He was present and he must have known her documents had been stolen. On the same day as the robbery, from GH and JK’s home, FA wrote to social services in England disclosing the covert camera recordings. On his own admission, he lied to MA about securing replacement documentation for her. Soon after the robbery, and whilst MA thought he was helping to secure a replacement BRP, he notified the Home Office that the marriage was over, thereby causing the termination of her spousal visa and ensuring she had no lawful means of re-entering the UK.

[54]After the robbery in Pakistan, MA found it harder and harder to maintain any form of contact with AA and her phone was blocked. In oral evidence there was no real dispute that contact had ceased from in or around November 2024 whilst AA was living with GH and JK in Manchester, and that it did not resume until the court’s intervention in March 2025. In oral evidence, the respondents could not give me any satisfactory explanation for why contact had ceased. They appeared to me to have taken the collective view that it was not in AA’s interests to have any time with her mother, even remotely over a video link. MA’s evidence about this and all events after she arrived in Pakistan was credible, internally consistent, consistent with other evidence and admissions by the respondents, and compelling.

[55]FA’s conduct in writing to the Home Office as he did on 16 October 2025 in an attempt to undermine the court’s requests to the Home Office, including the one I made only a week earlier on 9 October 2025, was not only a brazen challenge to the court’s authority but also revealed his character and his approach to MA. He will take whatever steps he considers are necessary to keep her out of the country and away from AA, even seeking to thwart the effect of the court’s orders.

[56]I have to step back and review the whole of the evidence. One key feature of the evidence in the case that stands out for me is FA’s view of his marriage to MA. He had all the power in the relationship and he exercised his power without any care for MA. Not only was the marriage arranged by JK for FA’s benefit, but it was a marriage to someone who lived in a country he had never visited, with whom he had no connection whatsoever, whom he had never met in person, and who was half his age. She did not speak his language and he did not speak hers. She became pregnant during his two week visit to Pakistan for the marriage and then he stayed separate from her for several months until she obtained a spousal visa to come to England. FA viewed MA’s presence in England as within his gift, as he amply demonstrated when he secured its termination in 2024 when MA was in Pakistan and their daughter was in England. In all his actions and in his evidence to the court he has shown no care at all for MA. I can find no evidence that when MA arrived in England in August 2023 FA did anything to help her to assimilate. There is no evidence that in Hampshire he introduced her to anyone. She was wholly dependent on him and he did nothing to change that dependency. He filmed her having sex with him covertly. He cruelly gave her hope that he would help her obtain a new BRP to allow her to return to England to be with her daughter. He went behind her back to engineer the termination of her spousal visa. I have searched in vain for any evidence that FA has shown any affection, support, or care for MA.

[57]In assessing the whole of the evidence, whatever disquiet the court has about the obtaining of the covert recordings, they do provide evidence on which I find that MA physically slapped AA on her face, arm and back, and that she roughly handled her. I find that she slapped AA repeatedly on the face and once on the back of the head on 30 July 2024 and that she slapped her on the arm on 30 July and on her arm and bottom on 14 August 2024. She handled her roughly on 30 July, 14 August and 18 August 2024, including by putting her milk bottle in her mouth roughly, and putting her down on the bed roughly. Although there is no evidence that MA caused AA any injuries by these actions, in my judgement the slapping on 30 July 2024 constitutes physical abuse. To that extent I find that the allegation at paragraph 7.1 above is proved.

[58]The video evidence also establishes that on a few occasions MA raised her hand to AA without then slapping her, but I would not categorise what is shown in the videos as emotional abuse. I have referred to one incident when MA raises one hand and then strikes AA on the cheek with her other hand. That was cruel but it is covered by the finding above. At other times, even on the videos relied upon by FA and exclusively within his control, when MA is clearly under stress, she is seen to be affectionate with AA. Physical abuse as found would be likely to cause some emotional harm to AA but I am not persuaded to make a separate finding of emotional or psychological abuse of AA.

[59]The recordings do not assist me to make a finding of emotional or psychological abuse by MA of FA in accordance with the allegation at paragraph 7.3 above. There is no other reliable evidence before me on which I can make that finding. There is video evidence of raised voices and arguments but couples argue and I am not satisfied that this establishes any form of abuse by MA of FA as alleged.

[60]I should again emphasise that whilst the physical abuse shown on the recordings is unacceptable, it must be understood in the context of MA being a new, first-time mother, living in an arranged marriage with a husband she had only lived with for a few months and whom she has alleged deliberately burned her and repeatedly raped her. She was living for the first time away from her home country, knowing no-one other than her husband in England, and wholly dependent on him. They did not speak each other’s languages as first languages. MA had given birth at the end of the previous year when living in a refuge. She was a young, first time mother. She was wholly isolated with no support.

[61]There are various aspects of the evidence that call into question FA’s credibility. His oral evidence was evasive, vague and he deflected responsibility for his actions to avoid confronting the truth about his conduct. His written account of how he had had no contact with AA and then was “utterly surprised” when MA arrived with AA at his home on 22 January 2024 was wholly misleading: he had had three meetings with MA trying to persuade her to come home with AA. He has misled the court about installing the hidden camera in the bedroom – I am quite satisfied that MA did not know about that camera and that he used that camera to film covertly. He has told the court that she knew about the cameras but I am sure that she did not know about the bedroom camera. He has misled the court about the reasons for installing a hidden camera in the bedroom. He says that he was concerned about AA’s safety under the care of MA but he is seen lying in the bed whilst MA is with AA, including when she handles her roughly, without taking any notice. He could see what was happening but is apparently unperturbed. Nor did he check the recordings before 21 August 2024 when MA left for Pakistan. He lied to MA about securing a replacement BRP. He acted behind her back in securing the cancellation of her spousal visa. He acted behind the back of the court by writing to the Home Office on 16 October 2025. He did not tell MA that he planned to leave AA with GH and JK during her absence in Pakistan but I am sure that he did so, as he placed her with them within two or three days of MA’s departure. He has repeatedly alleged that MA’s motivation for making false allegations against him is to secure entry to the UK for her boyfriend but has produced no evidence of such a relationship nor any satisfactory explanation of why MA’s actions would have helped this unidentified man.

[62]I find FA’s evidence as a whole to be unreliable. In relation to the hidden camera he has been dishonest with the court. He may have been dishonest because he is aware that covert surveillance of a spouse or partner will be frowned upon, but I find that he was dishonest to avoid a finding against him that he covertly filmed the couple having sex. He has also been dishonest with MA about her travel documentation and I am satisfied that his dishonesty in that respect was because he wanted to prevent her leaving Pakistan. His communication to the Home Office on 16 October 2025 is further evidence that he is prepared to go behind the back of the court to secure that same goal.

[63]FA has a very close relationship with GH. He appears to go to GH, and to JK, for advice and help. Through them he can seek to influence events in Pakistan. They arranged the marriage for him, after all. They have looked after AA on his behalf for a long period. On reviewing all the evidence, I am persuaded that there was a co-ordinated plan to keep MA in Pakistan, including by way of stealing her travel documents from her. I am persuaded that the robbery was set up: it was arranged in order to steal MA’s documents from her. It was arranged to take place when it was known where she would be, en route to collect money as arranged by JK. Steps had been taken to ensure that she had the documents and that she would be travelling on a certain road at a certain time. I have no doubt that FA and JK were involved in the plan and, on the balance of probabilities, I find that GH was also. His very close relationship with FA and with JK, the fact that he has with JK assisted in the arranged marriage and caring for AA, his proximity to FA when he wrote the letter to social services on the day of the robbery, and his involvement since the robbery in seeking to support LM, all establish on the balance of probabilities his involvement in the plan to steal MA’s documents and then to ensure that she could not return to England. The respondents had all the knowledge and contacts to co-ordinate the robbery and FA, supported by GH and JK, had a purpose in ensuring the documents were stolen. He backed up the effect of the theft by writing to social services on the same date and later notifying the Home Office of the breakdown of the marriage. He postponed action being taken by MA by lying to her about securing a replacement BRP. One or more of the respondents worked with LM to mis-report the robbery. Later still, indirect contact was stopped by the respondents and MA’s mobile phone was blocked to prevent her making contact to the respondents in England. I am satisfied that the evidence establishes all of these matters. This was all part of a course of conduct. Having regard to the dicta of Moylan LJ in Re A (above) I am satisfied that FA’s conduct, aided and abetted by GH and JK, constituted “stranding” or abandonment.

[64]In my judgement it is probable that this plan was formulated only after FA watched the video recordings of MA which he has relied upon in support of his own allegations in the proceedings. I am sure that prior to her departure to Pakistan, FA had decided he would not do anything to secure travel documentation for AA to be able to travel with MA, but I am satisfied that he contemplated MA returning at some point. However, whether motivated by viewing the recordings or for other reasons, once MA was in Pakistan he took advantage of the opportunity: I am sure that FA planned to ensure that she could not come back to England and he set about executing that plan including by working with GH and JK to arrange the robbery and then to prevent MA having any legal opportunity to return to England.

[65]From in or about November 2024, FA not only sought to keep MA in Pakistan but he set about reducing and then stopping her indirect contact with AA. Again he had the assistance of GH and JK in that regard. AA was living with them at the time. This harmed MA’s relationship with AA.

[66]I am fully satisfied that MA’s allegations at paragraphs 7.1, 7.5 and 7.6 above are proved save that I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that as part of the stranding FA bought MA a one-way ticket to Pakistan. I simply do not have sufficient evidence of that specific allegation. I set out my precise findings below.

[67]For the reasons already given, I find that FA covertly recorded himself and MA having sex. She did not know he was doing so. I am unable to find that he tied her up or that he has circulated images or film of her to others either in Pakistan or at all.

[68]As to the burn injuries, I found the mother’s evidence to the court to be convincing. I have already referred to the father’s general lack of reliability. It does not follow that his denials of having caused the burns are untrue. I acknowledge the difficulty of defending an allegation of this kind when, on his account, the injuries were caused accidentally. However, the wrist scar was still very noticeable when photographed in October 2024, some two months or so after it was sustained. It must have been a nasty injury. The other scar was to her abdomen and she was quite heavily pregnant at the time. MA was very new to the country. FA did not take her for any medical attention for these injuries as he might have been expected to if they were accidental. There is not even any evidence that he bought any cream or dressings for them. If they were inflicted deliberately by him, it is unlikely that MA would have felt able to reveal that to the healthcare professional in FA’s presence at her first antenatal appointment later that month (August 2023). MA made the allegation that he had caused the burns deliberately at the first opportunity when he was not present and has been consistent in her account of them since then. She gave details when asked during her oral evidence which were consistent with her written evidence. She was clearly genuinely upset by the memories of the incidents. On the balance of probabilities I find that FA did cause the two burn injuries deliberately to MA. I recognise that that is a serious finding but the evidence drives me to that conclusion.

[69]I have already referred to the inequalities within the marriage. MA had no access to finances and was wholly reliant on FA. Was this financial control or coercion? She was wholly isolated socially. Was this also a form of psychological or emotional control or coercion? MA alleges that he locked her in the house and she had no access to keys but FA denied that. MA alleged that FA threatened her that AA would be taken away from her if she reported him to authorities. Again, he denies that. The use of surveillance by cameras, including at least one hidden camera in the bedroom, is a form of control. The cameras were clearly installed so that FA could watch MA in the house when he was not there. FA could view MA in the house on his phone when he was at work or out and about. There is no evidence of cameras outside the house which might more obviously provide some form of general security. There is no evidence that FA provided MA with access to a bank account or of what money he gave to her, indeed his evidence to me was that she did not need any because they would go shopping together. The evidence established that in fact MA did not leave the house alone, whether she was locked in or not. On balance having considered all the evidence, I am satisfied that FA did lock MA in the house, he ensured he had total financial control and that she was wholly dependent on him. He engineered that dependency and lack of freedom. I find that he was controlling and coercive within the marriage including financially, psychologically, and by surveillance.

[70]Within weeks of arriving in England and joining her new husband in his home, heavily pregnant though she was and isolated though she was, MA reported that he had repeatedly raped her. It is noteworthy that she was observed to present as a lost individual. She was extremely vulnerable. She recognised and articulated herself the pressures to return to FA and it was only the interventions of professionals that prevented her doing so. It is clear to me that even before she voiced the allegations of rape against FA, she was fully aware of the cultural pressure to be a loyal wife to him. This is not something she only became aware of after she had made the allegations. Hence, she made the allegations knowing that to do so would be in conflict with the expectations on her as a new and pregnant wife in an arranged marriage. She would only have made the allegations of rape and so jeopardise her marriage and her only source of support in England, were there sufficient reason to do so. I reject FA’s suggestion that MA alleged rape against him as some means of securing a visa for a boyfriend from Pakistan. I cannot find any other motivation for MA alleging rape against FA other than to report what had actually happened to her. Every part of her must have wanted the marriage to work – it had been arranged for her with the approval of her family. She had waited for months for a visa to join her husband. She was heavily pregnant with his child. She was dependent on him and had nowhere else to go. She had no incentive to make up allegations of rape, indeed she had many incentives to keep quiet. But she did report rape. She did so at the first opportunity, and the professionals to whom she made the reports appear to have considered her to be authentic.

[71]The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities however serious the allegations, but here I am mindful of the lack of corroboration in the form of medical or other evidence. I take into account that MA has, I find, given false denials of remembering her abusive conduct towards AA. I am mindful also that ultimately MA returned to live with FA although, as noted, she had nowhere else to go and could not leave the country and return to Pakistan with AA because she had no travel documentation for AA. She was under considerable cultural, economic and other pressures to return to him. FA flatly denies the allegations but I have found him to have deliberately caused burns to MA which he has also denied and I have found him to have been dishonest about his role in stranding MA in Pakistan including by arranging a robbery in which she was attacked. He has also been dishonest about covertly recording both MA in the bedroom, and the couple having sex together.

[72]In relation to an allegation of rape within family proceedings, the court does not apply the criminal law definition of rape or consent, nor the criminal standard of proof - Re H-N and others

[2021] EWCA Civ 448

. In this judgment I use the term rape as it is commonly understood and to mean engaging in sexual intercourse with penile penetration without the other’s consent.

[73]Having very carefully reviewed all the evidence and having paid close attention to MA and FA as they gave evidence I find it proved that FA raped MA in the period August to October 2023 and again after she returned home in late January 2024. MA told me that every time he raped her, he used physical force and I accept that some force was used when he raped her but also that he did not seek her consent or trouble himself about whether she consented or not. If she was reluctant or resistant he simply ignored that or used physical force to have his way. He regarded her as available for sex whenever he wanted it because she was his wife. I find that he used physical force when he needed to have sex with MA without her consent, and that he needed to do that on most if not all occasions. I have insufficient evidence for me to make any more detailed findings but I record that there is no evidence of physical injury by way of bruising or otherwise caused by the use of force to perpetrate the rapes. However, I have found that FA caused burn injuries to MA on two occasions early on in their relationship together in England, and I am satisfied that he did so as part of his exercise of control over her. He was making clear his expectations that she would have sex with him when he desired it. I am unable to find that he raped her four times a day or that he tied her up for the purpose of having sex with her. I am however able to find, and do, that during the periods set out above FA raped MA on multiple occasions. This was a form of sexual coercion and control as alleged by MA.

[74]Accordingly my findings against FA are: 74.1. Stranding: FA, in collusion with GH and JK, planned to strand MA in Pakistan. They arranged a robbery in which her passport and British Resident Permit (“BRP”) and other documents were taken. FA secured the cancellation of her UK spousal visa, blocked her telephone number, and ensured she was unable to return to England. 74.2. Domestic abuse: FA subjected MA to emotional psychological, sexual, physical and financial abuse throughout the marriage after her arrival in the UK in August 2023. He locked her in the home and deprived her of money and housekeys, threatening permanent separation from AA if she contacted the police. He caused two burn injuries to her when she refused to have sex with him in order to coerce her into having sex. 74.3. Rape. FA repeatedly raped MA between August and October 2023 and again after she returned home in January 2024. 74.4. Voyeurism. In 2024, FA secretly installed a camera in the parties’ bedroom and covertly recorded MA in their bedroom including during intimate moments. 74.5. Arranging the robbery in Pakistan. The respondents together colluded in arranging for MA to be robbed in Pakistan on 23 September 2024. This was part of the plan to strand her in Pakistan. 74.6. Failed to support MA’s relationship with AA. By stranding her in Pakistan and by initially cutting off all contact and then consistently failing to facilitate contact as ordered, FA, with the assistance of GH and JK, failed to support the mother-daughter relationship.

[75]My finding against MA is: 75.1. Physical abuse of AA: MA slapped AA repeatedly on the face and once on the back of the head on 30 July 2024 and she slapped her on the arm on 30 July and on her arm and bottom on 14 August 2024. She handled her roughly on 30 July, 14 August and 18 August 2024, including by putting her milk bottle in her mouth roughly, and putting her down on the bed roughly.

Cited in 1 later judgment

TK v SD 2026