GOEL & MAHLA

In the matter of GOEL & MAHLA, heard before Judge Scarlett, the applicant father sought various orders against the respondent mother concerning their two children. The father alleged that the mother had removed the children from Australia without his consent, forged his signature on consent orders filed in a Local Court, and used forged documents to obtain passports for the children and change their surnames. The father also sought an injunction under section 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which was refused.

The court was required to determine whether to grant interim parenting orders, including sole parental responsibility for the father, and whether to issue a recovery order for the children. Additionally, the court considered applications for injunctions to restrain the mother from dealing with her property and to prevent the removal of a caveat, as well as the provision of security for costs. The court also had to consider the placement of the children's names on the Family Law Watch List.

Judge Scarlett declared that the parties were married in Australia, the children were born in Australia, and they divorced in 2012. Crucially, the court declared that the respondent mother removed the children from Australia between 16 September and 23 September 2015 without the applicant father's knowledge or consent. The court ordered that the children were to live with the applicant father and that he was to have sole parental responsibility. A recovery order was issued under section 67Q of the *Family Law Act 1975*, authorising law enforcement officers to locate and recover the children, deliver them to the father, and arrest the mother if she again took possession of them or removed them from Australia. The court also restrained both parties from removing the children from Australia and requested their names be placed on the Family Law Watch List for three years. Further orders were made restraining the respondent mother from dealing with her property and requiring the net proceeds of sale of her property to be paid into the applicant's solicitors' trust account as security for costs. The applicant's solicitors were granted access to photocopy subpoena records for use in India. Finally, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs.