Alobi & March (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 667 (24 September 2025)

(a) With a real estate agent as agreed between the parties in writing within seven days, or failing agreement, the applicant shall nominate three prospective real estate agents and the respondent shall select one;

(b) The price shall be such amount as agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, as nominated by the real estate agent;

(c) The parties will cooperate in every way with the agent in relation to the sale of the Suburb B property including making a key available, allowing inspections, and ensuring the property is maintained in good condition pending its sale;

(d) If an offer is made from a prospective purchaser where the purchase price is at or above 95 per cent of the list price, the offer must be accepted;

(e) The respondent shall select a solicitor to facilitate the sale.

1. In the event the Suburb B property is not sold by private treaty within three months of the date of listing, the parties shall do all acts and things necessary to list the Suburb B property for sale by auction, as follows:

(a) The parties are to place the Suburb B property with an agent ("the auctioneer") as agreed between the parties at the earliest possible date;

(b) The reserve price shall be agreed between the parties or, in default of their agreement for a period exceeding 14 days, as recommended by the auctioneer;

(c) The parties will pay equally any sum requested by the auctioneer for advertising expenses in relation to the auction;

(d) The parties will cooperate in every way with the auctioneer in relation to the auction of the Suburb B property including making a key available, allowing inspections, and ensuring the property is maintained in good condition pending its sale;

(e) The parties shall give such instructions as are necessary to a solicitor selected by the respondent for the preparation of a contract for sale and for the contract for sale to be made available to the auctioneer prior to the auction;

(f) The sale price will be such amount as is the highest bid over the reserve price;

(g) The parties will negotiate with the highest bidder in the event the reserve price is not reached;

(h) The parties shall execute all documents necessary to complete the sale including the contract for sale.

1. In the event the Suburb B property does not sell at the first auction, the parties shall continue to market the property for sale as recommended by the agent and shall accept any price within ten per cent of the reserve price from the first auction.
2. Upon completion of the sale of the Suburb B property, the parties do all acts and things necessary to distribute the proceeds of sale in the following manner and priority:

(a) Payment of the amount outstanding under the mortgage secured over the title of the Suburb B property;

(b) Payment of agent's commission and auction expenses, if any, due on the sale of the property;

(c) Payment of legal costs of the sale of the property;

(d) Payment of $65,000 to the applicant;

(e) The balance to the respondent.

1. There be a superannuation splitting order affecting the interest of the respondent, Mr March (Member Number [...]), in Superannuation Fund 2 ("the fund") in the following terms:

(a) A base amount of $60,840 of the respondent's superannuation interest is allocated as required by s 90XT(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") to the applicant, Ms Alobi, out of the respondent's interest in the fund.

(b) In accordance with s 90XT(1)(a) of the Act, whenever a splitable payment within the meaning of s 90XE of the Act becomes payable in respect of the respondent's interest in the fund:

(i) The applicant is entitled to be paid by the trustee of the fund the amount calculated in accordance with Pt 7 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2025 (Cth) using the base amount specified in Order 7(a); and

(ii) There shall be a corresponding reduction in the entitlement of the person to whom the splitable payment would have been made but for this order.

(c) Whenever a splitable payment is made out of the respondent's interest in the fund, Superannuation Fund 2 shall do all acts and things and sign all documents as may be necessary to pay the entitlement created in Order 7(a) and (b) of these orders in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2025 (Cth).

(d) This order has effect from the operative time and the operative time is the fourth business day after an original certified copy of the sealed orders is served on the trustee.

(e) This order binds the trustee, namely Superannuation Fund 2.

1. Save as otherwise provided for in these orders, the respondent is solely entitled to the exclusion of the applicant to the following assets and resources in his ownership, possession or control as at the date of these orders:

(a) All monies, shares, debentures and cryptocurrency standing in his sole name;

(b) Real property registered in his name;

(c) Any motor vehicles;

(d) Any chattels, goods, furnishings and other property of whatsoever kind or nature; and

(e) Any superannuation entitlement.

1. Save as otherwise provided for in these orders, the applicant is solely entitled to the exclusion of the respondent to the following assets and resources in her ownership, possession or control as at the date of these orders:

(a) All monies, shares, debentures and cryptocurrency standing in her sole name;

(b) Real property registered in her name;

(c) Any motor vehicles;

(d) Any chattels, goods, furnishings and other property of whatsoever kind or nature; and

(e) Any superannuation entitlement.

1. Each party releases and indemnifies the other from any liability held in their sole name as at the date of these orders.

1. The parties shall do all acts and things necessary to give all consents and execute all documents and writing to give effect to these orders in the time periods prescribed.
2. In the event either party refuses or neglects to execute any deed, document or instrument necessary to give effect to these orders, the registrar of the court is appointed pursuant to s 106A of the Act to execute such deed, document or instrument in the name of the said party and do all acts and things necessary to give validity and operation to the deed, document or instrument upon the registrar being provided with verification of such refusal or failure by way of affidavit.
3. All outstanding applications are otherwise dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Alobi & March has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. These are property proceedings between the applicant, Ms Alobi ("the wife") and the respondent, Mr March ("the husband"), who were in a relatively short marriage of 3 years and 8 months.

1. The husband was born in India in 1985 and was 40 years old at the time of trial. He came to Australia in early 2013 on a working visa, obtained permanent residency in early 2017 and became an Australian citizen in mid-2019.
2. The wife was born in 1989, also in India, and was 36 years old at the time of trial.
3. In late 2010 the husband purchased a property in India located in E Street, City M ("the Indian property") for approximately $75,000 through funds given to him by his father.
4. In early 2017 the husband purchased an Australian property off the plan at F Street, Suburb B ("the Suburb B property") for $625,000.
5. The parties commenced a relationship in August 2018 and were married shortly thereafter in 2018 in City C, India. The husband then returned to Australia but came back to India for a traditional ceremony which took place in January 2019.
6. The parties were given gold and jewellery for their marriage. The whereabouts of these items was disputed between the parties and will be discussed further.
7. In early 2019 the parties travelled to Australia and commenced cohabitation in the Suburb B property.
8. The parties' child was born in 2022.
9. The parties separated on 28 June 2022, initially residing under the one roof.
10. In September 2022 the wife and child travelled to India on what was intended to be a temporary visit while the wife was still on maternity leave. It was during this visit that the husband informed the wife that she would not be permitted to return to reside in the matrimonial home and that if she should return to Australia, she would need to obtain alternate rental accommodation on her own for herself and the child.
11. The wife's evidence was that she did not have the financial resources to obtain a rental property in Australia and told the husband so. While he initially agreed to assist her, the husband ultimately refused. The wife said she could not afford to return and lost her employment. She has remained in India.
12. On 28 July 2023 the husband transferred approximately $65,399 from his Superannuation Fund 2 to his Superannuation Fund 3 self-managed account. On 6 September 2023 he then transferred $10,000 from that account to a trading platform for cryptocurrency. Between 13 and 26 September 2023 he transferred a further $50,000 in various transactions into his other trading account for cryptocurrency.
13. The husband alleges he sold the Indian property in late 2024 and received nil proceeds of that sale.

1. In early 2024 the husband commenced divorce proceedings in the Family Court of City N in India. The wife was not notified of the filing until she was served in May 2024.
2. On 8 April 2024 the wife filed an Initiating Application in this Court seeking both parenting and property orders.
3. On 21 May 2024 the husband filed a Response to Initiating Application seeking summary dismissal of the wife's Australian application asserting that his Indian divorce proceedings included parenting, property and maintenance claims.
4. In June 2024 the husband filed a child custody application in the Family Court of City C in India. That was followed by a further application in the Family Court of City C in July 2024 seeking to restrain the wife from continuing her Australian proceedings.
5. On 3 April 2025 I dismissed the husband's application for summary dismissal of these proceedings, but stayed the parenting proceedings until such time as the child was to return to Australia or the filing of an application for orders to facilitate the child's return to Australia.
6. The final hearing of the property proceedings took place on 27 May 2025.
7. At the end of the oral evidence, counsel for each party tendered a number of documents from tender bundles or annexures from affidavits. These included pages of bank statements and many letters between solicitors complaining about discovery. Few, if any, submissions were made about them. In the absence of that, it is difficult for a trial judge to try to guess at what counsel thought was relevant at the time of the tender. Ultimately however, it appears that there were not many facts which were in issue.
8. The delivery of these reasons has been significantly delayed by the conduct of the wife. Although she sought a superannuation splitting order, she had not served her proposed order on the trustee of the husband's superannuation fund. She was permitted to file evidence of having given them notice after judgment had been reserved. Despite several follow up emails from the Court, that evidence was not received until 4 September 2025.

1. I have excluded all entries under $100 in value from the balance sheet.

1. The husband owned a property in India prior to the marriage. Although it was in dispute for some time, the wife ultimately accepted that the husband had sold his property in India. Counsel for the wife subsequently did not press the value of the property on the balance sheet.

1. The main asset in contention was the wedding jewellery received by the parties when they were married. It was valued at $20,000 or $25,000. Each claimed that the other held it.
2. It was not in dispute that both parties attended a bank in India before returning to Australia. The purpose was to obtain a safety deposit locker.
3. The wife's evidence was that whilst they applied for the locker, it was not available before the return to Australia. She said in cross-examination that the jewellery came with them to Australia in the husband's possession and the husband then kept it, possibly in his brother's room.
4. The husband said that the safety deposit locker was obtained before they left and the wife placed part of her jewellery into the locker and he deposited a gold chain. The husband believes the locker is in the wife's name. He also said that the wife brought some of the jewellery with her as he saw her wearing it. A search of the matrimonial home after the wife's departure has not discovered it.
5. Both versions cannot be correct. I was not taken to any independent evidence which supported either version. There was nothing in the manner in which either of the parties gave evidence which enables me to prefer one version over the other.
6. In late 2022, the wife's plan was to return to India for approximately two months and then return to Australia. Whilst she was in India, the husband told her that he wished to divorce and that she could not return to the matrimonial home.
7. This caused the wife some difficulty as she had nowhere to live with the child in Australia. She was unable to return to work. The wife successfully applied for another job in Sydney but was unable to take it up for same reason.
8. The husband agreed that he expected the wife to return. He says that she left clothes, shoes and toiletries in the matrimonial home.
9. These matters persuade me that the trip to India was intended to be a break only and the expectation of both parties was that the wife would return. In that case, why would she take the jewellery with her, given that she left behind many other items with the clear intention of returning to them?
10. Although this reasoning is slight, it is sufficient to tip the balance in favour of the wife's version. I therefore find that the jewellery is in the husband's possession or control. It will be included with a value of $20,000.

1. The husband's Motor Vehicle 1 was included on the balance sheet with the husband asserting a value of $35,000 and the wife $50,500. An O Pty Ltd valuation was tendered into evidence (Exhibit 31), providing a value of approximately $35,000. That is the value that will be included on the final balance sheet.

1. The wife ultimately agreed on the figure for the husband's cryptocurrency.

1. The parties put forward differing figures as to the amounts in some of the bank accounts. In closing submissions, counsel for the wife explained they had used the husband's previous Financial Statement and were prepared to accept the figures from his most recent Financial Statement filed 9 May 2025 as to the amounts held in his bank accounts.
2. I have otherwise used the figures provided by the owner of the particular account.

1. The husband sought to include $2,000 for the wife's household contents on the balance sheet. There was no evidence as to what items may be in the wife's possession nor what their value may be. Furthermore, it would appear the contents of the Suburb B property remain in the husband's possession. I decline to include the amount sought by the husband.

1. As to liabilities, it is clear that post-separation the husband obtained a number of loans to buy cryptocurrency and pay legal expenses. This included a loan from his aunt which he repaid from the proceeds of cryptocurrency trading.
2. A loan of $40,000 was obtained by the husband from P Bank and used for trading. The husband seeks its inclusion on the balance sheet. In closing submissions I raised that both the CBA and P Bank loans were obtained after separation and were mostly used for the payment of legal fees as well as for trading in cryptocurrency and therefore should not be included on the balance sheet. No submissions were made against that course.
3. I will not include the husband's P Bank credit card debt. Even assuming it is in a similar amount to the time of separation, it is likely now to consist of post-separation expenses. In any event, the husband could clearly have paid it off by using some of the $65,000 he had drawn down from his accounts since separation where there is no explanation as to the fate of that sum. The amount was withdrawn in several transactions in amounts just under $1,000 every day or so for some time.
4. The husband also sought to include his ANZ Rewards Black card liability. His evidence was that he used the card for the benefit of the family during cohabitation. A document was tendered into evidence showing that the husband's card balance was $13,408 at the time of separation (Exhibit 25). Counsel for the wife declined to make submissions as to the quantum. The liability will be included at that amount.

1. The parties sought a number of add backs despite the persistent authorities pointing out that these are not assets and the matters are better addressed under s 75(2)(o) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act").
2. The husband sought an add back of $32,971 for unexplained withdrawals by the wife. Property settlement proceedings are not the place to carry out an audit of the parties' finances during and after separation. I accept that these were used for living expenses, which seems quite likely, and therefore decline to add them back.
3. The wife sought an add back for the $65,652 withdrawn by the husband. That has partly been dealt with in relation to the credit card. As to the balance, although there is no evidence as to where it went, there is similarly no basis to find that that sum would have remained available for division. Further, it was accumulated from the husband's post-separation income. It will not be included in the balance sheet.
4. Add backs were also sought for legal fees, but there is no evidence of the source of the funds. Legal fees are usually taken into account when funds that would otherwise have been available for division are used for their payment, but generally not otherwise (Chorn and Hopkins [2004] FamCA 633; (2004) FLC 93-204; Trevi & Trevi [2018] FamCAFC 173; (2018) FLC 93-858). There will not be an add back.
5. The husband paid $3,760 to his father apparently in repayment of a loan. The wife asserted that the "loan" did not exist and sought the amount be added back. That was not put to the husband in cross-examination. It will not be included.
6. The wife did not press the add backs at Items 38, 40 and 41 being the sale of a car post-separation, a further payment by the husband to his father in the sum of $10,000 and a funds transfer from Australia to India in the sum of $19,402.

1. Finally, the husband reduced his superannuation by $63,949 to fund his cryptocurrency investments. The evidence, in the form of price charts for various cryptocurrencies (Exhibit 36), shows that the husband was purchasing particularly volatile varieties of cryptocurrency which fluctuated in value dramatically. It does not seem to be prudent to use superannuation for such a purpose. It was reckless and imprudent (Kowaliw and Kowaliw [1981] FamCA 70; (1981) FLC 91-092) and therefore is something that will be taken into account in the property division. It is not a matter for the balance sheet.

1. I do not propose to rehearse the parties' respective contributions in detail. Both counsel accepted that the husband made the bulk of the financial contributions and the wife made the bulk of the non-financial contributions.
2. The husband owned the equity in the matrimonial home, bank accounts and superannuation at the commencement of the relationship. These outweighed the wife's savings by at least a factor of five, but remain modest amounts.
3. The husband worked throughout the relationship. The wife worked for a while in a part-time job before being employed in the legal field in early 2021. The husband's salary was greater than the wife's.
4. Whilst there is a dispute on the evidence as to the amount of domestic work undertaken by the wife, I consider that her evidence is more plausible. In any event, her care of the parties' child is more important. Whilst the husband asserted he carried out much of the care of the child, that seems unlikely. The husband was, after all, in full-time employment.
5. The wife has had the sole care of the child since September 2022. That is about three years. The husband has paid child support as assessed but has provided no other support.
6. I assess the contributions up to the time of the hearing to be 55 per cent to the husband and 45 per cent to the wife.

SECTION 79(4) CONSIDERATIONS

1. The wife will have the sole care of the child for the foreseeable future.
2. I have said I would take into account the husband's reduction in superannuation.
3. The difficulty is that there are precious little funds available for division let alone adjustment. A 10 per cent or even 20 per cent adjustment of the non-superannuation assets causes a significant differential in percentage terms but little in monetary terms.
4. Nonetheless, taking these matters into account, the appropriate outcome is that the wife receives 60 per cent of the divisible assets and the husband 40 per cent.

1. Sixty per cent of the net assets (including superannuation) is $169,745. The wife already has:

1. Therefore she requires a further $125,840.
2. The funds available to meet this are the equity in the home (approximately $97,000) and the husband's superannuation. Superannuation is not immediately available to either party and may not be for some time. Doing the best I can, the wife should receive $65,000 cash and $60,840 as a superannuation split from the husband's Superannuation Fund 2.
3. Thus, the husband retains:

1. The differential is easily justified by the wife's future care of the parties' child.
2. I consider these orders to be just and equitable.

1. On 22 April 2025 the wife filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking orders that the husband pay her costs of the husband's summary dismissal application on an indemnity basis in the sum of $14,658 (or, alternatively, at scale in the sum of $14,342).
2. As outlined earlier, the husband sought summary dismissal of the wife's application in this Court on the basis that proceedings in India included parenting, property and maintenance issues. The application was heard on 10 March 2025 and on 3 April 2025 I delivered judgment refusing the husband's summary dismissal but staying the parenting proceedings until the "return of the child to Australia" or the "filing of an application for orders to facilitate the child's return to Australia" (Alobi & March [2025] FedCFamC1F 216).
3. Section s 117(1) of the Act provides the general rule that each party is to bear their own costs. Section 117(2) provides the court with the power to make other orders for costs provided the court is satisfied there are circumstances that justify doing so, having regard to s 117(2A).
4. The wife contends the husband's application was wholly unsuccessful with the Court "dismissing it in its entirety and making Orders that aligned with the course of action previously proposed by the [wife]" (wife's written submissions filed 19 May 2025, paragraph 21). Contrary to the husband's submissions, the wife argues the stay of the parenting proceedings was a "procedural step, not a judgment of the appropriateness of the Australian court's jurisdiction over the parenting matter" and therefore did not constitute a partial success (wife's written submissions in reply filed 6 June 2025, paragraph 4).
5. The practical effect of the interlocutory proceedings was that the wife was successful on the property issue but not the parenting.
6. The property pool is very small and neither party can easily bear a costs order.
7. I am not persuaded that there are circumstances that justify a costs order.

I certify that the preceding seventy-four (74) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Aldridge.