Chhibber and Kudva (No 2)

[2014] FamCA 632

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHHIBBER & KUDVA (NO. 2) [2014] FamCA 632

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Consideration of whether there has been a breach of s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where the applicant has been interviewed by a media program – whether the matter should be referred to the Australian Federal Police.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Kudva

RESPONDENT: Ms Chhibber

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5238 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 7 August 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Macmillan J

HEARING DATE: In Chambers in the absence of the parties

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Andrew P Melville

THE RESPONDENT: In person

ORDERS

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The USB copy of the ‘Media Program K’ program aired on … be marked Exhibit “W1” and remain on the Court file.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Chhibber & Kudva (No. 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5238 of 2013

Mr Kudva

Applicant

And

Ms Chhibber

Respondent

REASONS

1. On 28 March 2014 the applicant filed an initiating application seeking a Decree of Nullity of the marriage solemnised at the Religion M Church, Suburb N, on … July 2011. On that same date he filed an affidavit sworn 24 March 2014 in support of that application. On 6 May 2014 the respondent filed a response to the initiating application and an affidavit sworn by her in support thereof.

2. On 9 May 2014 I declared the marriage between the parties to be null and void. I also ordered that a copy of my orders, the reasons for judgment delivered that date, a sealed copy of the applicant’s initiating application and affidavit in support thereof filed 28 March 2014, the respondent’s response to the initiating application and affidavit filed in support thereof on 6 May 2014, and any other documents which may be considered relevant be referred to the Chambers of the Chief Justice of this Court for referral to the appropriate authorities for consideration of prosecution of the applicant for a breach of s 94 of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth).

3. Both the applicant and the respondent deposed in their respective affidavits to the program aired on Media Program K which included a doorstep interview with the applicant.  As a result, I further ordered that by 4.00 pm on 16 May 2014 the respondent deliver to the subpoena clerk of this Court a copy of the applicant’s interview with Media Program K and otherwise adjourned the matter for mention before me at 9.00 am on 27 May 2014.

4. This mention was subsequently re-listed and when the matter came on for mention before me on 29 May 2014 the respondent had produced a copy of the program on a USB as ordered. On that date I adjourned the matter for further mention before me on 11 July 2014 but indicated that if upon viewing the program I determined not to refer the matter, then that listing would be vacated in Chambers.

5. I have now had the opportunity to view the program aired by Media Program K on 4 October 2013, some five months before the applicant filed his application seeking a Decree of Nullity. On 12 September 2013 – prior to the program going to air – final parenting and property orders were made by consent in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Although the parties were clearly identified in the program, there was no mention of or anything connecting them to either the parenting or property proceedings or the application for a Decree of Nullity.

6. In all of the circumstances and having viewed the program in question, a copy of which will remain on the Court file, I did not refer the papers in this matter to the relevant authorities and vacated the further mention date.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Macmillan delivered on 7 August 2014.

Associate: 

Date:  7 August 2014