FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SODHI & PARKHI | [2014] FamCA 498 |
| FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Where the husband alleges his consent was not proper because of fraud or duress – Application dismissed |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 51 Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) s 23B |
| Hallas and Kefalos [2012] FamCA 860 Kokl (1981) FLC 91-078 Re S (1980) FLC 90-820 Teves III and Campomayor (1995) FLC 92-578 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Sodhi |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Parkhi |
| FILE NUMBER: | PAC | 453 | of | 2014 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 19 June 2014 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Parramatta |
| PLACE HEARD: | Parramatta |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Foster J |
| HEARING DATE: | 19 June 2014 |
REPRESENTATION
| THE APPLICANT: | Self-represented Litigant |
| THE RESPONDENT: | No appearance |
Orders
The Application for Declaration of Nullity filed on 4 February 2014 is dismissed.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Sodhi & Parkhi has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA |
FILE NUMBER: PAC 453 of 2014
| Mr Sodhi |
Applicant
And
| Ms Parkhi |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application filed by the husband seeking a declaration of nullity in relation to his marriage to the Respondent wife. The marriage was solemnised on … August 2013 at Sydney Suburb D, New South Wales, and a certified copy of the marriage certificate has been marked into evidence as Exhibit A. It appears that the marriage was performed by a celebrant pursuant to the rights of Religious Organisation C. The marriage was registered on … September 2013.
The application filed by the husband on 4 February 2014 is supported by an affidavit by the husband filed on the same date.
By way of background, the husband was born in 1980 and is now aged 33 years of age. The Respondent wife was born in April 1984 and is now 30 years of age.
During the course of these proceedings service on the Respondent wife, whose whereabouts are not known to the Applicant, was dispensed with and the matter proceeds on an undefended basis.
The affidavit in support of the application for a declaration of nullity has been prepared by the husband himself and is in handwritten form. It is of some utility to reproduce the terms of the affidavit in these reasons for Judgment. In his affidavit the Applicant husband deposes as follows:
1. This marriage ceremony took place on …/08/13. I was forced into this marriage by my mum. I did not give my real consent to the marriage because consent was obtained by duress and fraud. This was a purely arranged marriage. I was told by family members back at home that [Ms Parkhi] (respondent) was a descent (sic) person. [Two days after the marriage ceremony] I found out that [Ms Parkhi] had an affair with her work colleague and continue to have affair. Her main intention to marry me was to get Australian citizenship.
2.I obeyed my mum’s wishes because she threatened that if I…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sodhi and Parkhi and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] FamCA 498
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to a declaration that the marriage was null and void. This required the Court to consider the relevant legal grounds for nullity under Australian family law.
Foster J dismissed the application for a declaration of nullity. The reasons for this dismissal are not elaborated upon in the provided text, but the outcome signifies that the Court was not satisfied that the legal threshold for declaring the marriage null and void had been met.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The Application for Declaration of Nullity filed on 4 February 2014 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.