Guram v Guram - [2021] NZHC 3153

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 182 OF THE FAMILY VIOLENCE ACT 2018, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,

PLEASE SEE https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/about/restriction-on-publishing- judgments/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-1607

[2021] NZHC 3153

UNDER the Family Violence Act 2018

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal from a decision of the Family Court at Manukau on 14 July 2021

BETWEEN

BALKAR GURAM

Appellant

AND

KULPREET GURAM

Respondent

T

Associated Respondent

Hearing: 3 November 2021

Appearances:

D Rajapakse for the Appellant B Castelino for the Respondents

Judgment:

23 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 November 2021 at 12 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Ogles Podwin & Associates, Auckland
Castlefinn Law Ltd, Auckland

Counsel: D Rajapakse, Auckland

GURAM v GURAM [2021] NZHC 3153 [23 November 2021]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Balkar Guram, appeals the decision of Judge J G Adams in the Family Court at Manukau delivered on 14 July 20211 refusing to make a protection order against the respondent, his wife Kulpreet Guram,2 and the associated respondent, her son T.3

[2] Mr Guram alleges that he was mistreated physically, psychologically and financially. He says he fears Mrs Guram and/or T will upload onto the internet a video they took of him in humiliating circumstances. He says if this happened, it would affect his reputation in India where he has family, including his mother and a daughter.

[3] The Judge was left in doubt about the allegations of physical and psychological abuse.4 He said he did not find Mr Guram had demonstrated that he had been subject to a course of financial abuse.5 The Judge was also unable to positively find that there was a video as alleged by Mr Guram and accordingly he dismissed the application for a protection order.6

Background

[4] Mr Guram and Mrs Guram are both from the Punjab state in India. They met on a dating website in 2017. At that time, Mr Guram was living in India. Mrs Guram was living in New Zealand with her two sons from a previous marriage. As at the date of Mrs Guram’s affidavit of 23 March 2020, her older son, T, was aged 17 and her younger son, B, was aged 11 years. Mr and Mrs Guram married in India on 28 February 2018. The two sons attended the wedding.

[5] After the wedding, Mrs Guram and her sons stayed with Mr Guram for several weeks travelling in India and then returned to New Zealand. Mrs Guram told

1      [G v G] [2021] NZFC 7044.
2      The names of the appellant and respondent are not their real names. I have used assumed names to avoid the risk of identifying the respondent’s two sons.
3      Although “T” is now 18 years…

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 Guram v Guram

Details

AGLC: Guram v Guram [2021] NZHC 3153
Case: [2021] NZHC 3153
Decision Date: 23 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Balkar Guram appeals the Family Court decision which refused to make a protection order against his wife, Kulpreet Guram, and their son, T. The appellant alleges that he was physically, psychologically and financially abused. The Judge was left in doubt about the allegations of physical and psychological abuse. He said he did not find Mr Guram had demonstrated that he had been subject to a course of financial abuse. The Judge was also unable to positively find that there was a video as alleged by Mr Guram and accordingly he dismissed the application for a protection order. The Judge found that the parties were in a qualifying relationship under the Family Violence Act 2018 as they were married. He said he was left in doubt about Mr Guram’s allegations of physical and psychological abuse. However, he said even if he was wrong, he was confidently of the view that there was no reasonable risk of future family violence. He said he was not persuaded that Mrs Guram or T had any desire to pursue a course of psychological abuse against Mr Guram. He also stated he was unable positively to find that there was any such video. The Judge dismissed Mr Guram’s application for a protection order because of lack of necessity. The appeal was allowed. The Judge made findings of credibility which were not based on cross-examination of the appellant. The court gave less than the usual deference to the lower court’s judgment on the question of credibility than might otherwise be the case. The text messages provided support for Mr Guram’s evidence that the video did exist and that Mrs Guram made threats to him about him disseminating the video on social media. Additionally, there were other matters concerning Mrs Guram’s credibility. The evidence also established Mrs Guram encouraged her son, T, to engage in behaviour that constituted family violence. The court found that a protection order was necessary for Mr Guram’s protection under s 79 of the Act. I will also direct that the order applies to T on the basis of my finding that Mrs Guram encouraged him to engage in behaviour against Mr Guram that amounted to family violence. A protection order was made in favour of Mr Guram against Mrs Guram and T, on the standard conditions. The court imposed a special condition as follows: The respondent, Mrs Guram, and associated respondent, T, must not publish or cause anyone to publish the video recorded in September or October 2019 showing Mr Guram in a state of undress with a piece of meat in his mouth on the internet, including on social media and online platforms in New Zealand, India or in any other country. I direct Mrs Guram and T to: (a) Undertake an assessment for a non-violence programme; and (b) Attend a non-violence programme, provided by a service provider, that an assessor determines is an appropriate non-violence programme for each of them to attend. Costs were reserved.

Orders