Atapatu and Atapatu

Stevenson J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia made orders in the absence of the wife, who did not appear when called. The proceedings concerned parenting and financial matters between the husband and wife, who are the parents of a child, B. The husband sought orders for equal shared parental responsibility, that B live with him, and for the wife to facilitate B's return to Australia and Skype contact. He also sought orders regarding the division of joint and individual assets, including a joint bank account, superannuation, and property in India.

The court was required to determine the parenting and financial orders to be made in the matter, considering the paramountcy of the child's best interests as mandated by section 60CA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved applying the considerations outlined in section 60CC of the Act, including the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents, protection from harm, the child's views, the nature of the relationship with each parent, and the capacity of each parent to provide for the child's needs. The court also had to consider the enforceability of its potential orders in India, as indicated by the expert evidence presented regarding the Indian Code of Civil Procedure and relevant Supreme Court of India judgments.

Stevenson J applied the principles of section 60CA and 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to determine the parenting orders, noting the absence of the wife. The court also considered the expert evidence concerning the enforceability of Australian court orders in India. This evidence indicated that final parenting and property orders could be enforced in India under Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provided they met certain criteria. Interim or ex parte orders, however, would likely require invocation of writ jurisdiction under the Constitution of India. The court also noted that while an interim order from an Indian Magistrate's Court existed, it did not preclude the Australian court from adjudicating final parenting and custody rights through due process.

The court made orders in accordance with the husband's further amended initiating application. These included orders for equal shared parental responsibility for B, with B to live with the father. The mother was ordered to spend time with B when in Australia and to cooperate in facilitating B's return to Australia within 28 days, at her expense. The father was to have daily Skype contact with B until the return. Financial orders included the closure of a joint bank account, with the husband declared the sole owner of his superannuation and funds in a specific superannuation account. The wife was declared the sole owner of assets in her name. Property in India was to be sold, with proceeds distributed as to 42 per cent to the husband and 58 per cent to the wife after costs and charges.