A Muslim man and his Hindu wife were held in separate detention facilities in the UK while awaiting deportation to India, leading to a legal challenge against the Home Office. The High Court ruled that the Home Office may be required to pay damages for breaching the couple’s human rights by detaining them separately. The couple entered the UK in 2022 but lost their legal right to stay in 2024. They later applied for asylum in March 2025, claiming they feared persecution in India due to their interfaith marriage. The Home Office rejected their asylum application in August 2024, calling it "clearly unfounded," which prevented them from appealing the decision. They were then detained separately from September 2024 until their release in early October 2024. The couple’s legal team argued during a June court hearing that the asylum refusal was "procedurally unfair" and unlawful. They also claimed that the decision to keep them separated violated their human rights and that they were entitled to financial compensation. The Home Office defended its position, stating the couple had a fair chance to present their case and that they were separated because of their imminent deportation. The department initially told the court that shared accommodation was typically available for married couples but that this particular pair had to be separated due to their planned removal. In a ruling on Tuesday, Deputy High Court Judge Simon Tinkler noted that the Home Office later admitted during the hearing that keeping the couple apart had unlawfully interfered with their human rights. The judge explained that the department had realized it had no facility to house married couples together since 2020. He pointed out that the Home Office’s earlier claim that they had genuinely considered housing the couple together was revealed to be untrue. While the judge dismissed the challenge to the asylum decision, stating it was "correct" and aligned with what the court would have decided, he ruled the couple was entitled to damages for the human rights breach. These damages will be calculated in a county court at a later date. Judge Tinkler criticized the Home Office for a "serious failure" in being honest with the court, stating that it had been "misled." He added that while it might not always be required to provide family accommodation for short-term detentions, it is not acceptable to mislead claimants or the court about such provisions. He urged the Home Office to review all similar cases to ensure compliance with legal obligations. The Home Office has not yet responded to requests for comment.