Gola & Ralston

In this matter before Riethmuller J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the applicant wife sought property settlement orders under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The dispute concerned the division of assets following the parties' separation in 2015, with the wife residing in India with the parties' two children and the husband controlling the majority of the assets in Australia. The court acknowledged that it was just and equitable to make property settlement orders given the long relationship, the location of assets, and the wife's residence abroad.

The primary legal issues before the court were the characterisation of certain assets and the husband's post-separation dealings with property. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether a parcel of land in India was the wife's separate property or a joint asset, and whether the husband's acquisition of the B Street, Suburb C property was a valid transaction to which the wife had agreed or consented. The wife also disputed the authenticity of her signature on loan documents related to this property.

Riethmuller J found that the land in India was the wife's separate property, having been purchased for her by her parents, and not funds of the parties. Regarding the B Street, Suburb C property, the court accepted the wife's evidence that she did not sign any documentation for its purchase and did not authorise the husband to forge her signature on loan documents. The court found the husband's evidence regarding these transactions unpersuasive, noting that the mortgage broker had purported to witness the wife's signature when she was in India, and that the husband had deceived the broker. The court concluded that the husband had uttered false signatures of his wife and deceived the mortgage broker.