GADHAVI & GADHAVI

In the Family Court of Australia, Johnston J considered applications by a wife seeking sole parental responsibility for the parties' 16-year-old child and exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home, against the husband's request for equal shared parental responsibility. The wife also sought various injunctions to facilitate the husband's exclusion from the home. Serious allegations of family violence were made against the husband by the wife and the child, and the child expressed a clear view that she did not wish to spend time with her father.

The court was required to determine whether to grant sole parental responsibility to the wife or equal shared parental responsibility to both parents, taking into account the child's views and the allegations of family violence. Additionally, the court had to consider the reasonableness and practicality of the parties cohabiting, and whether to grant the wife exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home and issue injunctions to restrain the husband's contact with the wife and child.

Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly concerning the best interests of the child and the impact of family violence, Johnston J found it was not reasonable, sensible, or practicable for the parties to continue living together. The court gave significant consideration to the 16-year-old child's expressed views. Consequently, orders were made for the wife to have sole parental responsibility for the child, with the child to live with the wife. There were no orders for the child to spend time with the husband, and the husband was restrained by injunction from contacting or communicating with the child in any manner. The wife was granted exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home, and the husband was restrained from attending the property or communicating with the wife or child, except through legal representatives.

The court made orders for the husband to deliver keys to the former matrimonial home and vacate the property in a clean and tidy condition, with specific provisions regarding the removal of his belongings. Further injunctions were made to prevent the husband from cancelling utility services or removing specified furniture. The court also ordered that each parent refrain from denigrating the other in the child's presence and to use their best endeavours to ensure third parties do not do so. Costs were reserved.