Krala & Krala and Anor

In the matter of *Krala & Krala and Anor*, Kay J considered applications by the wife for property settlement, spousal maintenance, and an injunction. The parties had been married for 14 years. The wife sought a property settlement, spousal maintenance, and orders restraining the husband from dealing with assets.

The court was required to determine the wife's entitlement to a property settlement, considering her current needs and the husband's offer. It also had to assess the wife's claim for spousal maintenance, taking into account the disparity in the parties' capital positions and the wife's capacity to support herself at 65 years of age. Finally, the court needed to decide whether to grant an injunction to restrain the husband from dealing with assets, assessing the risk of the wife's claim being defeated.

Kay J found that the wife would likely be entitled to a property settlement exceeding the husband's offer of $450,000 and that she had a current need for funds. Consequently, a partial property settlement of $100,000 was ordered. Regarding spousal maintenance, the court noted the husband's superior capital position and the wife's limited capacity for self-sufficiency at her age, ordering a lump sum of $31,200 for six months. The application for an injunction was dismissed, as there was no evidence of a real risk that the husband's conduct would defeat the wife's claim, with the court noting the wife's existing protections through caveats and section 106B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The court ordered the husband to pay the wife $31,200 for maintenance within 14 days and $100,000 by way of partial property settlement within 30 days. Further orders were made by consent regarding the provision of financial documents, the return of personal possessions, and the notification of a security system password. Other applications were dismissed, a conciliation conference was rescheduled, and costs were reserved.