Highlights
- High Court judge Simon Tinkler rules couple may be owed damages over breach of Article 8 right to family life
- Couple's asylum challenge was rejected, but their separation in detention was found to be an "unlawful interference"
- Wife and husband, referred to as FNB and FNN, were detained on 11 September 2025 pending removal to India
A MUSLIM man and his Hindu wife who had sought asylum in the UK on the grounds of feared persecution over their interfaith marriage have won a claim over being separated while in detention ahead of being deported to India.
High Court judge Simon Tinkler ruled on Tuesday (15) that the couple may be owed damages from the UK Home Office over a breach of their right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
While their challenge against being denied asylum was rejected, the London court concluded that there had been a "serious failure" when the married couple were held separately.
"The claimants were a husband and wife. During the period when they were at the Immigration Detention Centre they were accommodated separately in the male and female accommodation areas, respectively," reads Justice Tinkler's judgment.
"They said this was an unlawful interference with their Article 8 rights to family life... The claimants are therefore successful in seeking a declaration under Ground 3 that their separation in detention was an unlawful interference with their Article 8 rights."
The hearing before Tinkler was not listed to assess the "quantum of damages" and a claim to assess those damages, "if any", will now be transferred to a lower court.
Background to the case
The couple, who are referred only as FNB for the wife and FNN for the husband under the anonymity granted in asylum cases, claimed asylum in the UK based on "feared persecution in India because of their interfaith marriage".
The wife initially arrived in the UK in 2022 on a student visa, with her husband joining her as her dependent.
Their claim for asylum was refused by the Home Office in August last year after the "human rights grounds and humanitarian protection claims were certified as 'clearly unfounded'."
"That meant that there was no right of appeal. FNB and FNN were detained on September 11, 2025, pending removal to India. They were housed separately with FNB in a female accommodation area and FNN in a male accommodation area.
"The principal reason given was that they were shortly to be removed and, as such, any interference with their Article 8 rights was proportionate," the judgment noted.
Judge's findings
However, the judge concluded that while it may or may not be "entirely legitimate" not to provide family accommodation for families without dependent children for a short period pending removal, it is not legitimate to "mislead" the court into believing that such accommodation exists.
The High Court stated that it is now a matter for the Home Office to ensure that courts are not misled in the future and must also urgently review all current cases in which a similar matter of unlawful separation has been raised.
"The claim will now be transferred to the county court for the assessment of the quantum of damages payable (if any)," the judge concluded.
