MEDAPATI & REVANKA

This case concerned parenting and property disputes between Ms Medapati and Mr Revanka. In relation to parenting, the mother sought sole parental responsibility for the child, that the child live with her, and that there be no contact with the father, who resided in Country J and had not seen the child for several years. The father sought orders for contact and electronic communication with the child. In relation to property, the parties had interests in Australia and several other countries, with the husband asserting numerous assets and liabilities in Country J and elsewhere.

The court was required to determine the parenting arrangements for the child, considering the views of the mother, the Family Consultant, and the child himself, all of which supported no time spent with the father and limited communication at the child's discretion. The court also had to determine the division of the parties' property interests, which were spread across multiple jurisdictions, and address the veracity of the husband's evidence regarding his assets and liabilities.

Forrest J ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child, that the child live with her, and restrained the father from initiating contact with the child electronically. The mother was to provide the child with the father's contact details, and the child was informed they could contact the father by mail, telephone, or email as they wished. Both parties were restrained from removing the child from Australia, and the child's name was to be placed on the Family Law Watchlist. Regarding property, given the unreliability of the husband's evidence, the court ordered that all identified Australian properties in either party's name, along with a property in Country J, properties in Country HH, and timeshare interests in Country L, be sold and vested solely in the wife. The wife was appointed trustee for the sale of the Australian properties, with detailed directions regarding the sale process and distribution of proceeds. The husband was ordered to transfer his interest in specified overseas properties and assets to the wife, and to vacate any property to be transferred to her. The husband was also ordered to indemnify the wife against liabilities arising from her past company directorships in Country J and to discontinue matrimonial proceedings in Country J. Finally, the husband was ordered to pay $200,000 towards the wife's costs.