Court battle over six-year-old boy missing in Afghanistan

A six-year-old boy who was born in Afghanistan and is never thought to have set foot in Britain is at the centre of a taxpayer-funded family court dispute between his separated Afghan parents.

The boy's parents left him with an uncle in Afghanistan when he was a month old, judges in London have heard.

They then travelled to England - and subsequently separated.

The boy's mother now wants the boy brought to England, and has launched legal action.

Her estranged husband says their son has disappeared from the uncle's home - and his whereabouts are unknown.

A judge has concluded that the father knows where the boy is.

Now the father has been ordered to provide information about the boy's whereabouts.

Detail of the case has emerged in a written ruling on the latest round of litigation by Mr Justice Peter Jackson.

The judge said he had analysed evidence at a private hearing and he said no-one involved could be identified.

Lawyers had told Mr Justice Jackson that both parents lived in England and were "habitually resident" in the UK.

Both had the "benefit of publicly-funded lawyers", the judge heard.

Lawyers for the boy's mother had asked Mr Justice Jackson to order the father to "give information" about the boy's whereabouts and "general circumstances".

The father was against any order.

His lawyers said the "investigation" into the boy's "situation" was in the hands of Afghan authorities - and they said a judge in England should not "seek to take over".

Mr Justice Jackson agreed to make the order the mother asked for.

The judge said the boy was "not known" to have "been present in this country at any stage".

He said the circumstances of the case were "highly unusual" - and he said the order he had made was unprecedented.

But he said the answer lay in England.

"The solution to this deeply troubling situation lies in this country because it is here that the father resides," said the judge.

"It is only by this court exercising its powers that a remedy is likely to be available."

He added: "The fact that there is no precedent for an order of this kind is a reflection of the highly unusual facts. It cannot be a reason for inaction."