Korrapati & Mishra

The parties in this matter were the mother and the father, who were Australian citizens originally from India. The dispute concerned parenting orders for their two children, who were born in Australia but had been residing in India with the mother. The father resided in Australia. The mother sought to have Australian family law proceedings dismissed, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the children were habitual residents of India, a non-Convention country. The father contended that the court retained jurisdiction due to the operation of section 111CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), notwithstanding section 111CD. The case came before Carew J of the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether section 111CD of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) operated to divest the Court of jurisdiction to make further parenting orders, given that the children were now habitual residents of India, a non-Convention country. This required the Court to consider the interplay between sections 111CC and 111CD of the Act, and whether a change in the children's habitual residence could affect the Court's jurisdiction after an interim parenting order had already been validly made. The mother argued that section 111CD prevented the Court from proceeding, while the father relied on section 111CC to maintain jurisdiction.

Carew J determined that section 111CD did not restrict the Court's jurisdiction to proceed and determine the parenting dispute. The Court found that there was no issue arising under section 111CC. The reasoning appears to have been influenced by the fact that an interim parenting order had previously been validly made by the Court, and the mother had provided undertakings to participate fully in the Australian proceedings and had consented to an injunction restraining her from taking steps in other jurisdictions. The Court concluded that a change in circumstances did not give rise to a conflicting determination on the exercise of jurisdiction in this instance.

The application by the mother to dismiss the proceedings was dismissed. The Court also made orders regarding the father's application for costs, requiring written submissions from both parties within specified timeframes, with the costs application to be heard in chambers unless a party requested a relisting.