Awataman and Lahiri

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Awataman (the husband) sought property settlement orders against Ms Lahiri (the wife). The dispute concerned the division of the parties' assets following their divorce in 2006. The wife had not participated in the proceedings to date, despite being served with documents and having opportunities to file material. The husband sought orders for the wife to vacate the former matrimonial home and for the property to be transferred to him, along with a property settlement payment.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the husband leave to proceed with the application on an undefended basis, given the wife's non-participation. It also needed to determine the just and equitable division of the parties' property, considering their financial contributions, future circumstances, and the specific assets and liabilities. Finally, the court had to consider an application for costs.

Justice Cronin found that the wife had been given ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings and had stubbornly refused to do so, including defying court orders to file material. Consequently, leave was granted to proceed on an undefended basis. Applying a four-step process for property division, the court identified the net pool of assets (excluding superannuation) at approximately $655,000. Despite differences in initial contributions, the court found that both parties had contributed equally to the relationship. After considering section 75(2) factors of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which included modest differences in earning capacity and security of tenure, the court determined that no further adjustment was warranted.

The court ordered that the wife vacate the former matrimonial home by 30 June 2011 and execute documents to transfer her interest in the property to the husband. Upon vacating, the husband was to pay the wife $226,000 by way of property settlement. The court also made orders for the division of various bank accounts, a motor vehicle, shares, and insurance payouts, with each party retaining their respective superannuation entitlements. The wife was ordered to pay the husband's costs fixed at $3,228.55, which were to be deducted from the property settlement payment.