Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-004556
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/63691/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 30 July 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN

Between

MS RESHMA ROY
Appellant
v

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms N. Zaman, counsel instructed by Susan Paul solicitor
For the Respondent: Mr E. Tufan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 17 June 2026

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appeal came before me for re-making following an error of law hearing the decision in respect of which was promulgated on 24 April 2016 (appended).

2. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Tufan helpfully accepted that the marriage between the Appellant and her husband was genuine and subsisting. He also accepted that the financial requirements were met at the date of application, however, he maintained the Respondent’s position as set out in the refusal decision of 8 November 2023 that the requirements of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules were not met.

3. Therefore, the issues to be determined are:

(i) Whether there are exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of leave under EX1 of Appendix FM or GEN 3.2.
(ii) Whether the refusal is proportionate given the acceptance that family life is established.

4. Regrettably, despite clear directions being set out in the error of law decision and reasons, no new evidence or an updated skeleton argument had been submitted. A bundle was uploaded on the day of the hearing itself in direct breach of the directions and with the consequence that there was no proper time to fully consider the updated statement and medical evidence in advance of the hearing, however, I agreed to admit it in the interests of the overriding objective to deal with the case justly and fairly, given that it contained updated witness statements for the Appellant and Sponsor and updating medical evidence in relation to the Sponsor.

Evidence

5. The Appellant was called to give evidence when she confirmed her identity, date of birth and address. She could not recall when she made her previous, undated but signed statement except that it was after the refusal and she confirmed that the contents of her further statement dated 9.6.26 were true. In cross-examination, when asked given that she arrived in the UK in 2010 why it took her 12 years to make an application to remain that she did not have much knowledge; her college closed and she could not get her certificate and did not have anyone to guide her through it.

6. The Appellant confirmed that her husband arrived 5 years later in 2015 and that they are both from Kerala, however, she is Christian and her husband is Hindu. When asked if there was any reason why she could not live in Kerala together or elsewhere the Appellant said that her parents did not approve of the marriage or the relationship as there is a big religious difference. Since I have been in the UK for this long she did not have support in Kerala and her husband does not want to go and live in India he likes it in the UK; he has his life set up here as he has a house, a mortgage and all and does not want to return to India. The Appellant confirmed that her husband is not working at the moment he is on Universal Credit. She said that he was working for the NHS but he stopped working due to health issues and depression and his mental health and he could not manage the stress. She said that he resigned in 2022. He then worked as a delivery driver and he has some savings now only about £3000.

7. When asked how she assisted her husband, the Appellant said that he has low mood and lacks motivation; his medication makes him drowsy and she looks after him and he really needs someone to push him to go to his appointments and engage with his care co-ordinator. She said that they call him and he does not want to talk to them and she talks to them and tells them how he is. The Appellant said that they have a review every 4-6 weeks.

8. I asked why the Sponsor does not want to talk to the care co-ordinators and the Appellant said that her husband has paranoia and he does not really engage with the service: he did not know why he is really ill. The Appellant said that right now he is co-operating with them and he knows something is wrong with him but he does not want to go out of the house and some days his paranoia is really bad. Even with medication he still gets paranoia on and off.

9. Mr Tufan put to the Appellant that the letter from the GP surgery says no (overt) sign of psychosis to which the Appellant said that her husband was improving; that he was really a different person and would not want to see everyone and could go violent but that has changed with the medication but only because he takes it every night. He still has negative thoughts that people are making fun of him. When asked why he is suffering from this condition, the Appellant stated that things have been very stressful for him as his family stopped talking to him when they got married. He had an accident and had back pain and he got depression and everything happened at once. He wasn’t showing any signs or she did not know if she missed them but last June it became very evident and she took him to A&E.

10. Mr Tufan asked if his condition was caused as he was using drugs and the Appellant said that he was using as a pain killer for his pain but that he had stopped taking them. She said that her husband is taking Olanzapine but she would not say all his symptoms have gone away. Since he started the treatment his behaviour has changed a lot and she believes there is an underlying health issue. Because he was taking cannabis it is easy to say that it is drug induced but there is no history before this.

11. The Appellant was asked if she had to go back to India and make an application to return if there is any reason her husband could not come and accompany her awaiting the results of that application, to which she responded that her husband does not want to go to India or take a break from his medication and find a new doctor and they did not really have anyone to provide support there and it was not as easy as here as he does not want anyone to know. He does not want to travel at all.

12. In response to my questions, the Appellant stated that she came to the UK in 2010 and finished her one year certificate but before I could get it the college was closed as it had no proper licence and her graduate school turned into something else and she did not have enough time to secure another place. This was in 2011. The Appellant said that friends then supported her as she did not have enough funds to support herself. The Appellant said she saw some solicitors: Paul John in Stratford for immigration advice and that she was advised to apply again as a student. The Appellant said she met her husband because she was house sharing with his cousin, he came to visit her and they became friends. The Appellant said they did not know each other before in Kerala. The Appellant said that her husband’s brother is in the UK but they were not really in contact although sometimes they would message, especially now her husband is sick. His brother lives in Manchester. The Appellant did not think that her brother- in-law would look after her husband and that there are no friends close enough to look after him.

13. In re-examination the Appellant was asked what she meant when she said that she pushed her husband to engage with support services and she said that he does not want to go out. She agreed that he engaged better with professional services with her support. When asked what would happen if she returned to India the Appellant said that her husband would be in big distress and he would not engage further with services; that you have to treat him as a child and he does not realise it is for his own benefit. With the paranoia and his negative thoughts you have to argue with him. He is so anxious on the day as well. She did not think anyone could manage him and it would go back to as it was before, like the symptoms worsen and he becomes more anxious and violent. She has to give him the medication otherwise he would not take it. He had suicidal thoughts at the beginning so she did not know how this would affect him. The Appellant confirmed that she attended appointments with him, which last for 30-45 mins.

14. With regard to income, the Appellant said her husband received £854 every 4 weeks and had applied for PIP and that he had helped him make that application. The Appellant said that the mortgage payment was £400 every month. She said that if she were allowed to stay she could work and also if he gets better her husband could get back to work. When asked who would look after him if she worked the Appellant said she would have to find something that works with his schedule eg working a night shift. She said that if she goes out he will call her and ask when she is coming back. She said that they have not been apart all these years and that she is hoping if he gets this treatment as he improved a lot that he will get better and they can both work. When asked if there was any other source of income she said that her friends help her sometimes. She confirmed that the mortgage was paid out of the Universal Credit.

15. When asked if she were to return to India how she would communicate with her husband eg via skype the Appellant said that she thought it would be hard now especially as he is not that well. If he withdraws and she is not here he may not pick up her call. The Appellant was asked why her husband says he does not want to go back to India, the Appellant said that he likes it in the UK and even since he came here he has been back only a few times. She said that there were 27 years left on the mortgage.

16. I asked the Appellant about contact with her family in India and she said that she talks to her sister in Kerala and her family are not very happy with her or what happened with her life and were against the marriage. Her sister is married and has kids. They are minding their own business. When asked if she could or would stay with her family if she went back to India she said she did not think so because she is married to a Hindu man.

17. The Appellant’s husband and Sponsor, Adarsh Jayakunari Suresh Kumar then gave evidence and confirmed his name and date of birth as 4.8.99. He did not remember the date of his old undated, signed statement but confirmed the contents of his new statement dated 9.6.26. In light of the shortcomings in that statement I agreed to let Ms Zaman ask questions. The Sponsor confirmed that he had 32 years left on the mortgage and did not plan to sell the property. He confirmed that he was in receipt of Universal Credit and had some savings as well. He said that he stopped working for the NHS in 2023 because he had an accident and treatment for back pain. He also had a car accident during covid times in 2021 and had a back injury at that time and he was still having treatment.

18. When asked by Ms Zaman if his wife were to return to India how that would make him feel the Sponsor responded that he cannot think. He said he would not return with his wife to India because he had nowhere to go and his house is here. In terms of family in India he said it was just his father now; it was not like before and it is very hard now. When asked why it had changed he said he did not know, everybody changed. He confirmed that his mortgage payments were made from his Universal Credit. Ms Zaman asked what would happen with his Universal Credit if he were in India to which I pointed out that he was unlikely to know. He confirmed that his wife is his carer and looks after him and he does not have anyone else who could look after him in the same way.

19. In cross-examination the Sponsor was asked about family in the UK and he said that his brother and mother were here, in Manchester. He said he did not know when asked how often he saw them. He said that his mother and father were still married but his father was in India and his mother was living permanently in the UK. The Sponsor was asked if his wife had to go back to India whether there was any reason why his mother and/brother would not be able to assist him if he needed assisting and he responded, assisting him in what. When he was told it was his day to day needs the Sponsor did not reply. The Sponsor was asked whether there was any reason he could not go and join his wife if she had to go back to live in India, given he lived there until 2015, the Sponsor said that he was not in India he was in Singapore. He was born in India but after GCSEs he was in Singapore for studies as he had a scholarship and stayed and worked there. He said he would like to live in the UK.

20. In re-examination, the Appellant was asked what the relationship was like between his mother and his wife to which he said that he did not know.

Submissions

21. In his submissions, Mr Tufan submitted that the Appellant was unable to meet the eligibility requirements of the Rules as as she was here illegally for a lengthy period. With regard to EX1 of Appendix FM and article 8 outside the Rules, he submitted that in order to come within the ambit of EX1 she would need to show that there would be insurmountable obstacles to family life with her partner continuing outside UK. He lived in India until age of 16 and his father lives there. Mr Tufan submitted that the Sponsor has a condition seeming to stem from indulgence in cannabinoids which has caused drug induced psychosis. From page 10 of the care plan/SB 38 it states that the patient appears mentally stable at the moment and the protective factor is abstinence from cannabis and he has stopped taking it. There is no current suicidal ideation. The Sponsor has low mood and it is quite clear from the CPIN on Mental Health in India v2 April 2023 that there is treatment available.

22. I said I would take judicial notice of this evidence and offered Ms Zaman the opportunity to make written submissions, which she declined.

23. Mr Tufan pointed out that the Appellant is also from India and there would be no insurmountable obstacles. Mr Tufan submitted in terms of article 8 that there would not be unjustifiably harsh consequences as a consequence of the Appellant’s return to India. The Appellant has not been legal in the UK for most of her time; the Rules cannot be satisfied and one can only exceptionally go behind the Rules.

24. With regard to Part Suitability the Appellant as is required by law can go and make an application for entry clearance. The decision of the Presidential panel in Younas (section 117B(6)(b); Chikwamba; Zambrano) [2020] UKUT 00129 (IAC) means you do this if the Rules are not met and subsequent caselaw eg Alam [2023] EWCA Civ 30 confirmed Younas was correctly decided. In terms of the wider proportionality assessment the Appellant has been precarious throughout her stay. She speaks English but has no financial independence and the current circumstances are that the family are living on social welfare with some savings and these factors go against the proportionality assessment. Mr Tufan submitted that the appeal should be dismissed.

25. In her submissions, Ms Zaman submitted that there would be insurmountable obstacles should the Appellant be asked to return to India and that there is significant evidence that shows that the Appellant is a protective factor and she is involved in her husband’s case. This is reinforced in oral evidence by both of them; that she looks after him and also has to push him to engage with professional services. It may be correct but there is medical evidence of relapse indicators: see page 10 of hard copy bundle, including paranoia, anxiety, hearing voices, poor engagement with services. If the Appellant returned to India her husband does not have a desire to return and wishes to remain, given his mental health vulnerability he should not be forced to leave the UK. No doubt paranoia, anxiety and poor engagement with services given the Appellant has been identified as a carer will all be factors that could cause a relapse and abstinence will no longer be the case and significantly harm his health and the quality of life they are enjoying and it will have an effect on the relationship and both their lives and would not be proportionate.

26. With regard to the Sponsor’s mortgage commitment he has 32 years left and he does not wish to sell his property and this is an asset that is important. I asked Ms Zaman to address me on the 12 month ban on re-entry in light of Part Suitability. The consequences on the Appellant returning would have an impact on both of them and the fact they may be separated and whether that is in terms of the balance of harm it is proportionate. The fact that they are husband and wife and the relationship is such that one spouse is dependent on the other would be unjustifiably harsh for the Sponsor to be expected to go to India when it is against his will and balance would be the severity of the interference with their family life weighed against public interest in the Appellant returning.

27. Ms Zaman submitted that the impact of consequences on her husband not wanting to go and the Appellant going to India would be extremely severe and he could spiral and cause a detriment to his health and this would not be justified. This couple have been in a relationship for a substantial amount of time, married and live together and share finances and under article 8 it would not be proportionate to put this couple through that hardship of separation or forced exit from the UK. No doubt India would have the means to help the Sponsor but query whether he would engage in the same way and he has support network in the UK with his carers.

28. Ms Zaman submitted that at the moment there is a low moderate risk to the Sponsor considering the balance of harm but that may change, given that the main barrier is his willingness and capability to engage. We know he is engaging with services in the UK with the assistance of his wife and we do not know if it would be the same engagement outside the UK. Although the threshold is quite high considering unjustifiably harsh consequences, Ms Zaman submitted that it is met by the Appellant’s vulnerability and subsisting relationship and the Appellant is a protective factor and would interfere with their relationship which is not justified by public interest considerations.

Relevant Law

29. Appendix FM provides, where relevant, as follows:

“Immigration status requirements
E-LTRP.2.2. The applicant must not be in the UK-
(a) on immigration bail, unless:
(i) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant arrived in the UK more than 6 months prior to the date of application; and
(ii) paragraph EX.1. applies; or
(b) in breach of immigration laws (except that, where the exceptions for overstayers section of Part Suitability applies any current period of overstaying will be disregarded), unless paragraph EX.1. applies.”
30. Section EX: Exceptions to certain eligibility requirements for leave to remain as a partner or parent:

“EX.1. This paragraph applies if …
(b) the applicant has a genuine and subsisting relationship with a partner who is in the UK and is a British Citizen, settled in the UK, or in the UK with protection status, in the UK with limited leave under Appendix EU in accordance with paragraph GEN.1.3.(d), or in the UK with limited leave as a worker or business person under Appendix ECAA Extension of Stay in accordance with paragraph GEN.1.3.(e), or in the UK with permission as a Stateless person, and there are insurmountable obstacles to family life with that partner continuing outside the UK.
EX.2. For the purposes of paragraph EX.1.(b) “insurmountable obstacles” means the very significant difficulties which would be faced by the applicant or their partner in continuing their family life together outside the UK and which could not be overcome or would entail very serious hardship for the applicant or their partner.”
31. GEN 3.2 provides:

“GEN.3.2.(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), where an application for entry clearance or leave to enter or remain made under this Appendix, or an application for leave to remain which has otherwise been considered under this Appendix, does not otherwise meet the requirements of this Appendix or Part Suitability, the decision-maker must consider whether the circumstances in sub-paragraph (2) apply.
(2) Where sub-paragraph (1) above applies, the decision-maker must consider, on the basis of the information provided by the applicant, whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal of entry clearance, or leave to enter or remain, a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because such refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant, their partner, a relevant child or another family member whose Article 8 rights it is evident from that information would be affected by a decision to refuse the application.”
32. Section 117B NIAA 2002 provides where relevant:

“117BArticle 8: public interest considerations applicable in all cases
(1) The maintenance of effective immigration controls is in the public interest.
(2 )It is in the public interest, and in particular in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, that persons who seek to enter or remain in the United Kingdom are able to speak English, because persons who can speak English—
(a) are less of a burden on taxpayers, and
(b) are better able to integrate into society.
(3) It is in the public interest, and in particular in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, that persons who seek to enter or remain in the United Kingdom are financially independent, because such persons—
(a) are not a burden on taxpayers, and
(b) are better able to integrate into society.
(4) Little weight should be given to—
(a) a private life, or
(b) a relationship formed with a qualifying partner,
that is established by a person at a time when the person is in the United Kingdom unlawfully.
(5) Little weight should be given to a private life established by a person at a time when the person's immigration status is precarious”.

33. Part Suitability, which came into force on 11.11.25 provides at SUI 11.4 that an applicant will be treated as having breached immigration laws if they overstayed their permission unless one of the exceptions applies (which are not applicable in this case) and at SUI 12.1 that they will be banned from re-entering the UK for 12 months upon an application for entry clearance if they depart voluntarily at their own expense.

Findings

34. It is not disputed that the Appellant is unable to meet the eligibility requirements of Appendix FM of the Rules given that she is a long term overstayer. Consequently, in order to meet those requirements she would have to show, pursuant to EX.1(b) that: “there are insurmountable obstacles to family life with that partner continuing outside the UK.”

35. I find that the Appellant is a credible witness except in respect of one issue by way of omission, which was her failure to mention that her mother-in-law now lives in the UK with her brother-in- law in Manchester. When her husband was asked in cross-examination what the relationship was between the Appellant and his mother he said he did not know. He also said that he did not know how often he saw his brother and mother. Whilst I am prepared to accept that there may be little contact between the Appellant and her husband and his brother and mother, given that the two families are of different religions and did not support the marriage, I have been given no explanation as to why the Appellant did not mention that her mother-in-law is in the UK. It may be that she has only recently arrived and they have not met but I simply do not know. I do accept the evidence of both the Appellant and her husband that contact with his brother is limited and takes the form of messaging.

36. I find that the Sponsor is not an entirely reliable witness as his evidence was potentially undermined by his drug induced psychosis and the fact that he is taking strong medication. I find in light of the care plan provided by Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Dina Farraj on 30 April 2026 and the letter from the Care Co-ordinator which were submitted in a supplementary bundle, that he is a vulnerable witness and I treat him and his evidence accordingly.

37. Dr Farraj made the following findings at the medical review:

(i) The sponsor has a mental and behavioural disorder due to use of cannabinoids/psychotic disorder/drug induced psychosis;
(ii) Back and neck pain due to trauma (fell from motorbike);
(iii) Current risk of suicide assessed as low;
(iv) Patient appears mentally stable at present;
(v) Risk of relapse is moderate due to reduction in anti-psychotic medication dose;
(vi) Relapse potential remains given previous cannabis use;
(vii) Relapse indicators are: paranoia, anxiety, poor sleep, poor appetite, hearing voices, poor engagement with services.

38. Dr Farraj’s notes of the meeting with the Appellant and her husband record that he continues to exhibit prominent negative symptoms, including marked social withdrawal and a significantly disrupted sleep pattern. He was reluctant but ultimately agreed to a joint meeting with the care co-ordinator and a support and time recovery worker. In terms of protective factors the first that she noted was “supportive wife involved in care” also ongoing care coordination input, abstention from cannabis use and engagement with treatment and willingness to adjust medication.

39. A letter from the care co-ordinator, Mary-Jane Davidson dated 21 May 2026 states: “his wife provides significant support, ensuring that he remains compliant with his medication and attends all scheduled mental and physical health appointments.” She also noted that his attendance at court would be likely to place additional stress on his current mental state.

40. I take account of the fact that the Appellant is in contact with her sister and her husband’s father remains in Kerala, however, I find that it would not be reasonable to expect the Appellant and her husband as a mixed religion couple, to live with either side of the family and they would have to set up their own household. The test is whether there are insurmountable obstacles to the continuation of family life in Kerala or India. I take account of the Appellant’s husband’s unwillingness to return there. I accept that he has been largely absent from India since the age of 16, having been in receipt of a scholarship to Singapore and then came to the UK in 2015 lawfully and became a British citizen in 2022. Thereafter he obtained employment with the NHS and purchased a house and he has a mortgage.

41. I find in light of the medical evidence and the letter from his care co-ordinator that the Appellant’s husband is struggling with his mental and physical health and is taking medication for both. I have taken account of the CPIN on Mental Health in India v2 April 2023, relied upon by Mr Tufan, albeit it is now 3 years out of date. No other background evidence was relied upon by Ms Zaman nor is contained in the bundle.

42. I have taken account of the Court of Appeal judgment in Butt [2025] EWCA Civ 189 where the Court reviewed the post Chikwamba caselaw and concluded as no exceptional circumstances or unjustifiably harsh consequences had been identified the appeal fell to be dismissed and the Appellant could return to Pakistan and apply for entry clearance.

43. I give full weight to the public interest in this case. The Appellant is a long term overstayer since 2011. Although the accepted evidence is that she met her husband in 2016 and they began cohabiting in 2021 and married in 2022 no application to regularise her stay on the basis of her private and family life was made until 8 July 2022 and as a partner on 11 August 2022. I accept the Appellant’s evidence that she sought immigration advice and was advised to make a further student visa application however, she did not do so and that weighs against her. I take account of the fact that section 117B(4) of the 2002 Act requires me to give 'little weight' to the relationship between the Appellant and her husband, because it was formed when she was in the United Kingdom unlawfully. Following Rhuppiah there is some 'flexibility' in the application of that requirement, if 'some compelling factor' is identified.

44. I have concluded that there is a compelling factor in this case, which is Mr Kumar’s mental and physical health difficulties which sadly require that his wife, the Appellant, take on a caring role. As a consequence of the deterioration in his health he is no longer able to work at the current time. Consequently, I find that any application for entry clearance would be potentially liable to refusal on the basis that the financial requirements of the Rules can no longer be met and the exceptions do not apply as he is in receipt of Universal Credit albeit the Appellant’s evidence is that has applied for PIP. I find that, due to Part Suitability, any application for entry clearance would be liable to refusal on suitability grounds and the Appellant would have to remain outside the UK for at least 12 months.

45. I have considered whether Mr Kumar would accompany his wife to India during the entry clearance process however I find that if he were to do so, unwillingly, this would jeopardise his recovery. He is not currently fit to work and it is unclear how the couple would support themselves given they are not accepted by either birth family. I find in light of the CPIN on mental health at that in order to access healthcare he is likely to have to pay privately; this is primarily based in urban areas [1.5.1]. Specifically with regard to mental health the report states that:

“15.1.1. The Commonwealth Fund’s IHCSP country profile for India, published in June 2020, noted: ‘Despite recent policy measures to strengthen mental health care, resources are extremely limited. Across India, there is only one trained psychiatrist for every 250,000 people and fewer than one mental health worker for every 100,000 people. In addition, few hospital beds are dedicated to inpatient psychiatric care…

15.1.2 The DFAT 2020 Country Information Report – India stated: ‘Access to mental health care is not uniform across the country, with availability of services significantly more limited in rural areas than in urban cities and large towns. Across the country, an estimated 150 million people (12.5 per cent of the population) are in need of active interventions for mental illnesses, including nearly 12 million who are living with serious mental disorders. Given the shortfall of specialist and health services for mental illness, treatment is often unavailable or inaccessible even for those who actively seek health care.’ 137

15.1.4 The Health Systems Global report, Mental Health Promotion, dated 23 February 2022, stated: ‘Accessing mental healthcare is still a challenge in India even two and half decades after the implementation of the District Mental Health Program (DMHP)…The DMHP has several key components; prevention activities such as suicide prevention services; promotional activities such as life skills education, counselling services at schools, colleges, and workplaces; awareness camps at the community level; establishment of linkages with self-help groups and non-governmental organizations, families and care-givers.’139

15.1.5 The WHO report, Indian Health System Review, stated: ‘There are 42 mental health institutions with fewer than 26 000 beds, and 50% of these beds are occupied by long-stay patients. There are almost 4000 mental health outpatient facilities and 10 000 psychiatric beds in general hospitals, though little is known about the mix of beds for acute, chronic and long-term care. The mental health workforce faces major shortages. It is estimated that there are 3 psychiatrists, 1.6 mental health nurses, 0.47 psychologists, and 0.33 social workers per 1 million population in India. A significant proportion of the mental health workforce is concentrated in the private sector.
15.3 Available medication
15.3.1 CPIT was unable to find information about the availability of drugs used to treat mental illnesses and their costs, from the sources used and consulted (see Bibliography).

15.4 Stigma 15.4.1 The Times of India opinion piece, We don’t take mental health seriously here in India, dated 27 August 2021, stated: ‘…There is a big stigma around people suffering from any kind of mental health issues. ‘Since people have limited finances, physical problems are given preference and mental issues take a back seat as it’s impact is not as visible as physical issues. There is a lack of education and awareness about mental health. People consider mental issues as taboo and they try to hide them. They don’t discuss it openly with others and feel low and a sense of guilt for suffering from mental illness.’ 147

46. I have concluded that if Mr Kumar were to accompany the Appellant to India in order not to be separated during the entry clearance process, then there is a reasonable likelihood that he would struggle to access medication and support in the form of access to reviews by a psychiatrist and meetings with a care co-ordinator, given the shortage of mental health professionals in India and stigma and the lack of information about access to medication. I find that this would be the case even if, as I suggested in submissions to Ms Zaman, he were to rent out his house and live on the proceeds of that after paying the mortgage (bearing in mind the complete absence of any evidence on this point). I find that Mr Kumar’s mental and physical health needs, particularly his mental health and the absence of reliable access to suitable care and support in India amounts to an insurmountable obstacle to family life continuing in India and that the requirements of EX1.(b) of Appendix FM of the Rules are met. Therefore the appeal succeeds.

47. I have also considered the likely situation if Mr Kumar remains in the UK whilst the Appellant returns to India in order to apply for entry clearance. I find that her role as a supportive carer is not one which could be readily fulfilled by a third party. Given Dr Farraj notes that Mr Kumar is socially withdrawn and that his wife acts as a protective factor against the risk of relapse, I find that separation from her for an extended period of at least 12 months in light of the application of Part Suitability would risk a relapse and place a further burden on the public purse, as this may result in him being sectioned or otherwise requiring further care and support by statutory services. Consequently, I find in the alternative that GEN 3.2 applies and that removal of the Appellant would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for Mr Kumar and that refusal to grant her leave would, in all the circumstances, be disproportionate.

48. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed on human rights grounds (article 8 ECHR).

Rebecca Chapman

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Chapman

20 July 2026