KHALID & KHALID

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant Husband and a cross-application by the Respondent Wife concerning property settlement and spousal maintenance. The dispute arose from the division of a small property pool, with the Husband having entered into a deed of settlement with an intervenor. The Wife sought to be excluded from a debt associated with the property settlement, arguing for equal contributions and seeking an adjustment in her favour under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The Wife also sought spousal maintenance of $2,000 per month.

The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to make an adjustment to the property interests of the parties, and if so, the nature and extent of that adjustment. Additionally, the court had to consider the Wife's claim for spousal maintenance, assessing both her demonstrated need and the Husband's capacity to pay, as well as the quantum of any potential order.

In relation to property, Gill J found it just and equitable to make orders favouring the Wife, acknowledging equal contributions and applying section 75(2) considerations. The court ordered that the remaining proceeds from the sale of a property, totalling $26,046.31, be the property of the Wife. Furthermore, the Wife was awarded 70 per cent of any splittable payments from the Husband's interests in two superannuation funds, pursuant to sections 90XT(1)(b) and 90XE of the Act. Regarding spousal maintenance, while the Wife demonstrated a need and the Husband a capacity to pay, the evidence was deemed insufficient to ground an order for a specific quantum, and therefore, no spousal maintenance order was made. The remaining property was allocated to each party respectively, with provisions for indemnification against liabilities.