IRFAN & AMIN

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Irfan (the mother) against Mr Amin (the father) concerning the four children of their marriage. The mother sought urgent interim orders compelling the father, who resides in Australia, to take steps to remove a travel ban imposed on the children by a religious court in Country B, where the mother and children currently reside. The mother also sought final parenting orders, property settlement, spousal maintenance, and litigation funding.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it was in the best interests of the children, on an interim basis, for the father to be ordered to take steps to lift the travel ban preventing their international travel. The Court also considered its jurisdiction to make orders operating *in personam* on a party within Australia requiring them to take action outside of Australia, and the necessity of ensuring the father remained amenable to the Court's jurisdiction.

The Court reasoned that, based on the evidence presented, it was in the best interests of the Australian citizen children to be able to return to Australia. It found that the travel ban, imposed by a Country B religious court, was not a family law order and that the father had caused its imposition. Applying its inherent power to protect its processes and its equitable jurisdiction, the Court made *in personam* orders against the father. These orders required him to do all things necessary to effect the immediate removal of the travel ban. To preserve the enforceability of these orders, the Court also ordered that the father be restrained from leaving Australia and that his name be placed on the Airport Watch List.