Kailas and Samrat

[2008] FamCA 616

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KAILAS & SAMRAT [2008] FamCA 616

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN - Best Interests

Rice & Aspland (1979) FLC 90-725
EJK & TSL (No. 4) [2006] FamCA 1022

APPLICANT: Mr Kailas

RESPONDENT: Ms Samrat

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3680 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 12 June 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Collier J

HEARING DATE: 12 June 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: N/A

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Arthur

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Webb Thom & Associates

Orders

1. That the husband’s application filed on 12 February 2008 be and is hereby dismissed.

2. That save and except the husband’s application in a case filed on 10 March 2008, seeking spousal maintenance, all outstanding applications in a case be and are hereby dismissed. 

3. That the husband’s application for spousal maintenance be set down for hearing for half a day before Justice Collier at a date to be fixed by the listing director of this Court. 

4. That the husband file and serve any further material, fresh or updated, upon which he seeks to rely within 14 days from today’s date.

5. That the wife file and serve any further material she seeks to rely upon which she seeks to rely upon within 14 days thereafter.

6. That the wife’s costs of this day be reserved to be determined with any other applications for costs at the conclusion of the hearing for spousal maintenance. 

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Kailas & Samrat is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3680 of 2007

MR KAILAS

Applicant

And

MS SAMRAT

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This matter has progressed this afternoon through two reviews, the results of which were that i) the matter remains in this Court and ii) procedural orders made by a Deputy Registrar were confirmed, but which related to the doing of things on dates now passed.  The matter thus remaining within the jurisdiction of this Court, counsel for the respondent has made an oral application that the husband’s application for final orders filed on 12 February 2008 be dismissed.  Her application is based on the line of authority commencing with the decision in Rice & Aspland[1].

   [1] (1979) FLC 90-725

Brief Background

1. The husband was born in August 1965.

2. The wife was born in December 1970.

3. The parties married in February 1997.

4. The subject child was born in May 2002. 

5. The parties separated on 10 February 2006.

6. On 27 September 2006 orders were made in the Federal Magistrates Court in Sydney providing that the subject child live with the mother and have time with the father as agreed between the parties.

7. A decree nisi for dissolution of the parties’ marriage was pronounced on 3 September 2007. 

The Application of the Husband

1. The husband’s application filed on 12 February 2008 seeks the following orders:

   (i)That the Respondent stop working as an…