SHAKIR & SHAKIR

The case of *Shakir & Shakir* concerned applications by both the husband and wife regarding their children's living arrangements, property division, and spousal maintenance. The primary dispute in relation to the children involved differing proposals for their time with each parent, with the husband seeking the children to reside with him and spend substantial and significant time with the wife, while the wife sought an equal time arrangement. In relation to property, both parties sought orders under s 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), with a key issue being the treatment of the wife's share rights under a new employment contract. The husband also sought spousal maintenance.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting orders for the children, considering the relevant provisions of the *Family Law Act*, including ss 65DAA(1), (2), and (5). This involved assessing the practicability of equal time arrangements, taking into account the wife's significant working commitments and the husband's role as a full-time carer for his uncle. In the property proceedings, the court had to decide whether the wife's share rights constituted property or a financial resource, consider contributions made to their acquisition, and determine the appropriate adjustment under s 75(2) of the Act, given the parties' differing incomes and earning capacities. Finally, the court had to consider the statutory requirements for spousal maintenance and whether it was just and equitable to make such an order.

In its decision, the court found that an equal time arrangement for the children was in their best interests and reasonably practicable, despite the wife's work commitments, and made detailed orders for their living arrangements. Regarding property, the court determined that the wife's share rights were property, to be placed in a separate pool due to their characteristics, and considered the contributions of both parties, including the wife's higher earning capacity and the husband's role as homemaker and parent. The court ordered a 20 percent adjustment in the husband's favour under s 79(4)(d)-(g) and made a superannuation splitting order. The husband's application for spousal maintenance was dismissed, with the court finding it was not proper to make any order.

The final orders included equal shared parental responsibility for the children, with a detailed schedule for their time with each parent during school terms and holidays. Property orders were made, resulting in the husband receiving 55 percent of the net asset pool and the wife 45 percent, with deferred payments concerning the uncertain value of the wife's share rights. The husband's application for spousal maintenance was dismissed.