Judge rejects Afghan mother’s accusations against husband

A Family Court judge has rejected a number of serious allegations made by an Afghan mother against her husband.

In HU v SU (Rev 1), Mr Justice Keehan called the woman “a most unsatisfactory and unreliable witness” who had “either lied about significant events and allegations or greatly exaggerated or embellished what had in fact happened”.

The couple had married in 1999 and had four children. Both admitted their marriage had been “turbulent”. In 2011, the father was arrested after accusations of violence by the mother, but was later released and told no further action would be taken by the police.

Last year, the mother alleged that the father had sexually assaulted her and been violent towards the children. Shortly afterwards, the father changed the locks at the family home and refused to let the mother in. She took the three eldest children to a friend’s house and they have been living with her ever since. The youngest child still lives with the father.

In a fact finding hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Justice Keehan noted that the latest allegations came after the mother found out the father had “taken a second wife. The judge added that the revelation had had a significant emotional and psychological impact upon the mother.

He ruled that the mother’s allegations against him were a “misguided attempt to bolster her case against the father” and declined to make any findings in her favour. The judge added that the mother had caused her children emotional harm with her “wholly inappropriate and negative comments and outbursts against the father”.

It was “essential” that the family attempt therapy “as soon as ever possible” to repair the damage done to the relationship between the three eldest children and their father, he said.

Mr Justice Keehan then made a wasted costs order against the mother’s solicitors for their “serial failures” throughout the case, which had led to the father incurring unnecessary costs. These included a delay in providing evidence from the police and failing to include the court in important correspondence with the father’s solicitors. He concluded that the solicitors had “acted improperly and unreasonably” so he ordered that they pay the father’s legal bills.

To read the full judgment, click here.

Photo of the Royal Courts of Justice by wwarby via Flickr

Stowe Family Law Web Team

View more from this author


anon - March 12, 2015 at 8:51am

Here we go again . Yet another middle aged male judge who is clueless about the coercion and control in domestic violence. Why did the husband change the locks? He is a controlling idiot. She reported him to the Police and they took no further action. How surprising , not. They very rarely take any action.” he’s just a bit upset love” or something condescendingly similar and probably no evidence taken either.
It’s about time the establishment work up to the fact that just because a person has a penis it does not give them the automatic right to assault another person. It is a crime not just a domestic.

Luke - March 12, 2015 at 6:03pm

“It’s about time the establishment work up to the fact that just because a person has a penis it does not give them the automatic right to assault another person. ”
I assume you are being ironical.

anon - March 12, 2015 at 8:17pm

No Luke I was not being ironical . It may be a slight exaggeration , but frankly services for domestic violence victims ( I do not mean specialist services but generalised like the police) and attitudes towards them are still mainly in the dark ages.
It’s about time ,given the millions of public funds that are spent mopping up after with mental health services, unemployment and family breakdown that a little preventative work would not go amiss.
Would it be too much to ask that when a victim finally has the guts to tell someone they are actually taken seriously and given some support.
If you like, contraception tends to be less costly than an unwanted pregnancy.

Luke - March 13, 2015 at 4:19pm

Well ‘anon’ when I suggested you were being ironical I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, because the claim that men are somehow given preference on domestic violence is laughable.
I am surprised that we have to go over this again, but the truth is that up until now when there has been an issue of domestic violence (DV) the Police seem to have taken the default position that the man is to blame and removed him. Contrary to your view I think there should actually be some evidence of guilt rather than assume everything the person without “a penis” says is true.
Feminist groups and unbelievably sometimes even government bodies still deny the reality of DV being a two-way street despite the evidence to the contrary. It is difficult to get government money to study DV against men but the following is a good reference:
Erin Pizzey started the first women’s domestic violence shelter, but when she said that most women in the shelter were perpetrators as well as victims the feminist attacks were relentless – is it a coincidence that she and her family received death threats, then two of her dogs were stolen and one shot dead ?
Here is a link to her views:

By the way, using the words “because a person has a penis” will have caused great offence to many members of the LGBTQ movement, they would not accept that “a penis” denotes gender. Perhaps we could use the word ‘male’ next time 🙂

Leave a comment