THE Conservative government acted unlawfully when it stopped thousands of residents from marrying foreigners and bringing them to Britain, the Supreme Court heard yesterday.

Policies brought in by Home Secretary Theresa May in 2012 have seen British spouses forced to earn a minimum annual income of £18,600 before their overseas partners could join them.

Even higher earnings thresholds apply if the parents are also claiming visas for their children.

But the country’s highest court heard pleas yesterday from groups such as the Divided Families Campaign to end to the restrictions.

Cases brought forward included that of British citizens AM and SJ and of Lebanese refugee MM, who could not meet the requirements.

Representing MM, Manjit Gill QC told the seven justices that Ms May’s policy was unlawful and in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“Parliament could not have intended the rule-making power to be used in such a way that it disentitles something in the region of half the working population from any possibility of being able to marry a foreign spouse,” Mr Gill said.

He added that the wage level had been set “unreasonably high,” becoming “an unlawful interference with core human rights.”

His client MM came to live in Britain in 2001 under refugee status and has leave to remain until June 2017.

Despite his wife being a fluent English speaker and likely to find a job upon arrival, MM is barred from bringing her to Britain as he earns £15,600 a year on average while he is a post-graduate student in Wolverhampton.

Previous hearings saw a High Court judge rule the minimum income requirement was a “disproportionate interference with a genuine spousal relationship.”

But the Court of Appeal decided in July 2014 that Ms May had found a “fair balance” to address the effect of immigration of non-EU partners and their children on the British benefits system.

Recent research by the Children’s Commissioner and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants found that “at least 15,000 children have been negatively affected by financial requirements in the three years following implementation of the new rules.”

The hearing continues.