Nadu and Vedru - [2008] FamCA 435

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NADU & VEDRU

[2008] FamCA 435

FAMILY LAW – MARRIAGE – Nullity – Duress

APPLICANT:

Ms Nadu

RESPONDENT:

Mr Vedru

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3467

2007

DATE DELIVERED:

31 March 2008

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

STEVENSON J

HEARING DATE:

3 August 2007

21 August 2007

9 November 2007
18 January 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Alexander

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Gnanakaran, Gnanakaran Solicitors

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

In person

Orders

That the application of the husband filed on 20 June 2007 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Nadu & Vedru is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3467 of 2007

MS NADU

Applicant

And

MR VEDRU

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE PROCEEDINGS

By an application filed on 20 June 2007 Ms Nadu (“the wife”) sought a Decree of Nullity of a marriage celebrated in June 2006 with Mr Vedru (“the husband”). He did not oppose the relief sought but disputed several factual assertions made by the applicant to support her claim. The wife contended that the marriage was void, as her consent was obtained by duress within the meaning of section 23B(1)(d)(i) of the Marriage Act (1961). If she can establish that her consent to the marriage was not a real consent, because it was obtained by duress, she is entitled to a Decree of Nullity pursuant to section 51 of the Family Law Act.

BACKGROUND

The wife was born in April 1987 in Sri Lanka and is now 21 years old. The husband was born in June 1987, also in Sri Lanka, and is now 20 years old.
The parties met in about November 2005 and began a relationship as boyfriend and girlfriend. It was common ground that the relationship did not meet with the approval of either of their families.
According to the wife, the husband first raised the prospect of marriage with her in May 2006. She said that, during a conversation about her providing him with financial support, he said: “Instead of my having to ask you for money like this, why don’t you give me your bankcard. After all we are close to each other and I want to register you as my wife.” She replied: “I do not want that. I am not ready for it. I will finish my studies and get a good job and then we might think about marriage.”
According to the wife, she and the husband again discussed the subject of marriage in May 2006 and the following conversation occurred: He said: “your father will never let us be together. Why don’t we register a marriage and we can be together? I went and got a form.’” She saw that he had already filled out a Notice of Intention to Marry. She said: “Why did you?” and he said: “We talked about this. Why won’t you get…

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 Nadu and Vedru

Details

AGLC: Nadu and Vedru [2008] FamCA 435
Case: [2008] FamCA 435
Decision Date: 31 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Nadu and Vedru, Stevenson J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband filed on 20 June 2007. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it is clear that the husband sought some form of relief or order from the court.

The central legal issue before Stevenson J was whether to grant the husband's application. The court was required to determine the merits of the application and decide whether to dismiss it or make other orders.

Stevenson J dismissed the husband's application. The reasoning behind this decision is not elaborated upon in the provided text, but the outcome indicates that the court found no grounds to grant the relief sought by the husband.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the application of the husband filed on 20 June 2007 is dismissed.

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.