Chawla & Dutta

In the case of Chawla & Dutta, the father sought to challenge the mother’s unilateral relocation of their two children to Country H, arguing that the Court should make certain parenting orders. The mother opposed the father’s application, contending that the children had become habitually resident in Country H, which would deprive the Court of jurisdiction to make the orders sought by the father. The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the father’s application for parenting orders, given the children’s alleged habitual residence in Country H. The Court needed to determine if the children were habitually resident in Country H, which would invoke section 111CD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and potentially limit the Court’s jurisdiction.

The Court found that the evidence did not support the mother’s assertion that the children had become habitually resident in Country H. The Court held that the children’s presence in Country H was temporary and due to specific circumstances such as border restrictions and financial constraints, rather than a permanent change in residence. The Court also noted that the children had not severed ties with Australia and maintained a routine and established existence in Country H only due to the temporary circumstances. The Court concluded that the children were not habitually resident in Country H and thus s 111CD did not apply to prevent the making of the orders sought by the father. The Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter and dismissed the mother’s application seeking a dismissal or permanent stay of the father’s claims. The Court further ordered that the father must notify the mother of the orders made within seven days and requested its associate to communicate the outcome to the mother at her last known email address.