Russell and Russell (No 5)

In *Russell & Russell (No 5)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application for divorce filed by the husband. The parties, married in India, had relocated to Australia, where their child was born. The wife opposed the divorce application, arguing that Australia was an inappropriate forum and that the husband's application was vexatious or an abuse of process. The husband, who had since relocated to India, contended he was ordinarily resident in Australia for the requisite period.

The court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to grant a divorce order, specifically whether the husband was ordinarily resident in Australia for the twelve months preceding his application. Further issues included whether proper arrangements had been made for the child's welfare and whether the Australian court was an inappropriate forum for the divorce proceedings, given ongoing litigation in India concerning dowry prohibition. The wife also argued that the husband's departure from Australia indicated he would not return, rendering Australian jurisdiction inappropriate.

The court found that the husband had not established that he was ordinarily resident in Australia for the twelve months prior to filing his divorce application. It noted that the husband had relocated to India and his intention to return was disputed. The court also considered the ongoing proceedings in India under the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, which involved both parties and their families, and concluded that these circumstances, coupled with the wife's impending relocation to India with the child, made Australia an inappropriate forum for the divorce. The court applied the principles of ordinary residence as defined in the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and considered the broader context of the parties' lives and legal entanglements.

Consequently, the husband's application for a divorce was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the proceedings.