MEHRA & MEHRA - [2019] FamCA 586

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEHRA & MEHRA

[2019] FamCA 586

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where Mother wishes to travel overseas – where risk of non-return – costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 117, 117(2A)

Lees & Halstead [2018] FamCA 970
Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101

APPLICANT:

Mr Mehra

RESPONDENT:

Ms Mehra

FILE NUMBER:

CAC

1794

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

19 August 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Canberra

PLACE HEARD:

Canberra

JUDGMENT OF:

Gill J

HEARING DATE:

19 August 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Sharma Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

R & J Lawyers

Orders

The Mother’s Application in a Case is dismissed.
The Mother pay the Father's costs as agreed or assessed within a period of 28 days after such agreement or assessment.
The matter is transferred to the Registrar's list pending further application by the parties or pending the matter being listed for preparation for trial.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Mehra & Mehra has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAC 1794 of 2017

Mr Mehra

Applicant

And

Ms Mehra

Respondent

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Before delivering judgment in this matter I will note that both parties attempted to file through the portal documents outside of normal Court hours, including documents which are not permitted to be filed, for example, documents associated with affidavits, documents not associated with affidavits and affidavits with annexures. None of these is a permissible course of action under the Rules that govern this Court and in the ordinary course would lead to the rejection of those documents.
The subject of these proceedings is an application by the Mother, pursuant to an application in a case filed on 29 July 2019, to enable her to depart from the Commonwealth of Australia and travel with the parties’ daughter, X, to India both specifically through September / October 2019 and also more generally.
The Father opposes such permission being given to the Mother. He does so primarily for two reasons. First he alleges that the Mother was non-compliant with orders that governed electronic communication between himself and X on the last trip to India which occurred in January 2018. The Mother for her part accepts that there was some non-compliance with those arrangements but says that it was attributable to her attending a wedding and attending upon an ill relative. She asserts that there was some agreement struck between her lawyers and the Father's lawyers. This is a contentious matter…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading MEHRA & MEHRA

Details

AGLC: MEHRA & MEHRA [2019] FamCA 586
Case: [2019] FamCA 586
Decision Date: 19 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *MEHRA & MEHRA*, heard before Gill J, the dispute concerned an application made by the Mother. The specific nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome indicates it was a contested matter brought before the court by the Mother.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the Mother's application. The court was required to decide whether to grant or dismiss the application brought by the Mother.

Gill J dismissed the Mother's application. Consequently, the court ordered that the Mother was to pay the Father's costs, either as agreed between the parties or as assessed by the court, within 28 days of such agreement or assessment. The matter was then transferred to the Registrar's list, to await further applications by the parties or listing for preparation for trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Mother’s Application in a Case is dismissed.

The Mother pay the Father's costs as agreed or assessed within a period of 28 days after such agreement or assessment.

The matter is transferred to the Registrar's list pending further application by the parties or pending the matter being listed for preparation for trial.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.