Chanda & Goel

[2021] FCCA 1824

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Chanda & Goel [2021] FCCA 1824

File number(s):

MLC 12118 of 2020

Judgment of:

JUDGE BURCHARDT

Date of judgment:

21 July 2021

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – Divorce – husband applying for divorce in circumstances where husband and wife live in Australia, have been separated for over a year and have no children – prior application for divorce lodged by wife in India 3 weeks before husband’s application in Australia – wife seeking dismissal of husband’s Australian application or alternatively adjournment until end of proceedings in India – further criminal proceedings in India against husband and husband’s parents under way – consideration of whether Australian proceedings vexatious in the Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538 sense – wife not identifying with sufficient clarity what the effect of divorce in Australia would be on Indian proceedings – Australia not a clearly inappropriate forum – divorce granted.

Cases cited:

Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538

Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571

Talwar & Sarai [2018] FamCAFC 152

Obannon & Scarffe [2021] FamCAFC 33

Number of paragraphs:

52

Date of last submission/s:

20 July 2021

Date of hearing:

20 July 2021

Place:

Dandenong

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Devries

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Tonkin Legal Group

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Robertson

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Armstrong Legal

ORDERS

MLC 12118 of 2020

BETWEEN:

MR CHANDA

Applicant

AND:

MS GOEL

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE BURCHARDT
DATE OF ORDER:	21 JULY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application of the wife to dismiss the husband’s divorce application or alternatively to stay same is dismissed.

2.There be a divorce order in the usual terms.

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.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Chanda & Goel is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Revised from transcript

JUDGE BURCHARDT

1. By way of introduction, on 6 November 2020, the applicant husband applied for a divorce.  The conditions that are required to be met for the grant of divorce were prima facie met in as much as the parties were residents in Australia, the wife was a citizen, the husband a permanent resident.  They had been separated for more than a year and had no children.  However, on 22 February 2021, the wife filed a response.  She seeks the dismissal of the application or in the alternative, that the application for divorce be adjourned until proceedings underway in India have been resolved.  In substance, it is something akin to an anti-suit injunction.  It is also, in substance, interlocutory.  And on that footing, there has been no cross-examination of witnesses.  The parties had evinced some intention or desire to cross-examine witnesses in India, but this would have been impracticable in…