Bhasin & Handa

In *Bhasin & Handa*, heard by Judge A Kelly, the applicant wife sought property adjustment orders against the first respondent husband, with the second respondent brother, who was a joint proprietor of a property with the first respondent, also involved. The dispute arose following the parties' marriage, which was arranged in India and involved a dowry. The applicant was unaware of the first respondent's previous marriage until after their own marriage, leading to reparations being made. The parties separated, with the applicant and child vacating the matrimonial home. The first and second respondents jointly purchased vacant land and constructed a dwelling. The second respondent sought to exclude the applicant from making a claim on his share of this jointly owned property.

The court was required to determine whether orders could be made affecting the property interests of a third party, the second respondent, who was not a party to the marriage. It also needed to consider whether an order for the first respondent to pay a monetary sum to the applicant was appropriate, and how to address the potential sale of the jointly owned property in the event of default in payment, which would impact the second respondent. The court also had to consider the adjustment of property interests between the applicant and first respondent, and the implications of any such orders on the rights and interests of the second respondent.

Judge A Kelly applied the principles of property adjustment under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), considering the net asset pool and the parties' respective entitlements. The court found that while the second respondent's rights and interests could be altered, this was only to the extent reasonably necessary and appropriate to effect a just and equitable division of property between the married parties. The court determined that the applicant was entitled to 45% of the net asset pool, which amounted to $153,000. Taking into account the applicant's existing assets, the court ordered the first respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $116,500 within 90 days. In default of this payment, further orders were to take effect, including the sale of the jointly owned property, with the proceeds to be applied first to sale costs, then to discharge the mortgage, then to the applicant's outstanding payment with interest, and finally, any balance to the first and second respondents. The court also made orders for the first and second respondents to indemnify the applicant against liabilities related to the mortgage and outgoings on the property.