Bhasin & Bhasin

Case [2021] FedCFamC1F 25

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Bhasin & Bhasin [2021] FedCFamC1F 25

File number(s): MLC 6473 of 2021
Judgment of: WILLIAMS J
Date of judgment: 9 September 2021
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim Spousal Maintenance application by the wife where the husband concedes that the wife is unable to adequately support herself and he has the requisite capacity to pay – Assessment of monthly quantum – Application for urgent periodic child maintenance in the absence of a child support assessment – Monthly payment ordered where husband agreed to pay private school fees and some ancillary expenses for the child – Further application by wife for part property settlement seeking the balance of proceeds of sale of a property in circumstances where the husband has considerable cash and shares at his disposal – Held just and equitable to make a further part property settlement in addition to that consented to by the husband on 10 August 2021.
Legislation:

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) ss 4, 139

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 72(1), 75(2),
Cases cited:

Brown & Brown [2007] FamCA 151

In the marriage of Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600

Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders) [2009] FamCAFC 166
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 62
Date of hearing: 26 August 2021
Place: Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Vohra SC
Solicitor for the Applicant: Lander and Rogers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Blackah
Solicitor for the Respondent: Macgregor O’Reilly Nash Solicitors

ORDERS

MLC 6473 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS BHASIN

Applicant
AND:

MR BHASIN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

WILLIAMS J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 SEPTEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER THAT:

1.Orders 2–5 of the Orders made on 10 August 2021 be discharged.

2.The $5,000 paid by the husband pursuant to Order 2 of the orders made by consent on 10 August 2021 be characterised as spousal maintenance.

Part property Payment

3.The applicant wife receive a $662,397.50, being the net proceeds of sale of the real property located at B Street, Suburb C (“Suburb C property”) and currently held in the trust account of Lander and Rogers lawyers, by way of interim property settlement.

Spousal maintenance

4.The respondent husband pay or cause to be paid by way of interim spousal maintenance the sum of $8,750 per month to the applicant wife.

5.The respondent husband pay the mortgage payment for the Suburb D property as and when they fall due, directly to the mortgagee, E Bank.

6.The respondent husband pay or cause to be paid a fixed amount of $500 per month to the applicant wife towards the Suburb D property rates and home insurance.

Urgent child maintenance

7.Pursuant to section 139 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), the respondent husband pay or cause to be paid the following:

(a)by way of urgent child maintenance in respect of X born … 2013 (“the child”) the sum of $2,037 per month…

Continue reading Bhasin & Bhasin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bhasin & Bhasin [2021] FedCFamC1F 25
Case
[2021] FedCFamC1F 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) was asked to decide on spousal maintenance, child support, and a part property settlement in the case of Bhasin & Bhasin. The wife, Ms Bhasin, sought spousal maintenance and child support from the husband, Mr Bhasin, as well as a part property settlement. The husband conceded spousal maintenance but disputed the quantum. He also agreed to pay private school fees and some ancillary expenses for the child but opposed the periodic child support application. The husband further opposed the wife’s application for a part property settlement, proposing instead that the sum be applied to reduce the mortgage on the property in which the wife lives.

The court had to determine the appropriate quantum of spousal maintenance and child support, as well as whether a further part property settlement was just and equitable. In deciding the spousal maintenance, the court assessed the wife's needs and the husband's capacity to pay, considering the wife’s limited work experience and the husband’s significant income. For child support, the court ordered an urgent payment to cover the child's private school fees and other related expenses. The court then assessed the wife's application for a part property settlement, considering the husband's considerable cash and shares at his disposal. The court concluded that a further part property settlement was just and equitable, ordering the husband to pay a specified sum to the wife.

The court ordered that the husband pay the wife $8,750 per month as spousal maintenance and $2,037 per month as urgent child maintenance. The husband was also ordered to pay the mortgage for the property in which the wife lives directly to the mortgagee and $500 per month towards the property’s rates and home insurance. The husband was further ordered to pay the child’s private school fees and reimburse the wife for the child’s school uniforms. The court also ordered that the wife receive $662,397.50, being the net proceeds of sale of the Suburb C property, by way of interim property settlement. All other interim applications were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 6473 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS BHASIN

Applicant

AND:

MR BHASIN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

WILLIAMS J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 SEPTEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER THAT:

1. Orders 2–5 of the Orders made on 10 August 2021 be discharged.

2. The $5,000 paid by the husband pursuant to Order 2 of the orders made by consent on 10 August 2021 be characterised as spousal maintenance.

Part property Payment

3. The applicant wife receive a $662,397.50, being the net proceeds of sale of the real property located at B Street, Suburb C (“Suburb C property”) and currently held in the trust account of Lander and Rogers lawyers, by way of interim property settlement.

Spousal maintenance

4. The respondent husband pay or cause to be paid by way of interim spousal maintenance the sum of $8,750 per month to the applicant wife.

5. The respondent husband pay the mortgage payment for the Suburb D property as and when they fall due, directly to the mortgagee, E Bank.

6. The respondent husband pay or cause to be paid a fixed amount of $500 per month to the applicant wife towards the Suburb D property rates and home insurance.

Urgent child maintenance

7. Pursuant to section 139 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), the respondent husband pay or cause to be paid the following:

(a) by way of urgent child maintenance in respect of X born … 2013 (“the child”) the sum of $2,037 per month to the applicant wife;

(b) to F School, all fees in respect of the child upon receiving an invoice and make all necessary arrangements with the school to receive copies of all future invoices in relation to the child;

(c) the child’s school uniforms upon receiving a receipt or tax invoice and reimburse the applicant wife for any such expenses incurred by her from the date of these orders.

8. All extant interim applications are otherwise dismissed.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A. Orders 1, 5, 6 and 7(b) and (c) are by consent of the parties.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

The application before the court was the wife’s application for spousal maintenance, child support and a part property payment. The husband did not oppose payment of spousal maintenance to the wife, although there was a dispute about the quantum. The husband opposed the wife’s application for periodic child support, although he consented to orders that he pay the child’s private school fees and reimburse the wife for the child’s school uniforms. The husband also opposed the wife’s application for partial property settlement of $662,379.50, which is the balance of proceeds of sale of a property .The husband proposed that the sum be applied to reduce the mortgage secured against the property in which the wife lives. BACKGROUND The wife is aged 44 and the husband is aged almost 36. The wife is engaged in home duties and primary care of the parties’ son aged nearly 8. The wife lives in Australia and also has two daughters from a previous relationship, age 16 and 21, both of whom live in her household. The husband is a sportsman, lives in Country J and travels extensively. The parties met in 2011 and at that time the wife was working as an educator. She ceased work in late 2011 and travelled to Country J to live with the husband. In 2008, the husband commenced playing professional sport and in 2010 he commenced playing for his country’s team. In 2013, he made his commenced playing internationally. The parties married in 2012 and their son was born in 2013. In November 2013, the parties jointly purchased a property in Suburb G for $850,000–$900,000. They paid the minimum deposit required and obtained a mortgage for the balance of the purchase price. In September 2017, they purchased vacant land in Suburb C, in the wife’s name, for $2,470,000, with the intention to build a family home. They paid a deposit of $280,000 and the balance was funded with a mortgage. In July 2019, they jointly purchased a property in Suburb D, where the wife continues to reside. The property was purchased for $1,150,000. In August 2019, the Suburb G property was sold for $900,000 and the equity was applied to fund the purchase of the Suburb D property, together with a mortgage. In early 2020, the wife’s motor vehicle was written off in an accident. She received $24,000 from the insurance of the motor vehicle, which she asserts she applied to pay off debts incurred for the support of the household and mortgage payments. In January 2020, the wife and their son moved to H City to ascertain whether they could live there. The wife’s two daughters remained in Melbourne. During that time the husband provided the wife $15,500 per month to pay the expenses of the house in which her daughters were living, the two mortgages secured against the Suburb D and Suburb C properties of approximately $11,500 per month, rates, insurances and utilities. That amount was subsequently increased to $17,500 per month. In August 2020, the parties separated and the wife and the parties’ son returned to Australia. Their son commenced school at a private school in Suburb C, as the private school he had previously attended did not have any vacancies. The husband continued to pay to the wife $17,500 per month, of which 11,500 per month was applied to the two mortgages.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.