Karanth & Parit [2025] FedCFamC2F 1705 (17 November 2025)

1. To date, the Respondent Father has not filed a Notice of Address for Service, nor filed material on the Commonwealth Courts portal, nor contacted the Applicant Mother.
2. Pursuant to Notation A of Orders dated 18 August 2025, the Applicant Mother seeks leave to proceed on a final basis noting the Respondent Father has not filed any material in these proceedings or participated in these proceedings.

1. Pursuant to the Applicant Mother's Affidavit of Service filed on 8 August 2025, the relevant documents were served on the Respondent's Mother Mrs Parit on August 2025, as evidenced by a photo of her holding the received legal documents, following a telephone call with the Respondent Father.

1. Deputy Registrar Middleton of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, made an order on 14 April 2025, pronouncing the Applicant Mother and Respondent's Fathers divorce to take effect on 15 May 2025.
2. The Respondent Father did not participate in the divorce proceedings before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
3. The Respondent Father has not spent time with the children since 2015.
4. The child, X resides with the Applicant Mother in Australia. The child, Y resides in India with the maternal grandmother. The Respondent Father resides in India. The Applicant Mother submits that immigration lawyers require final orders of this Court to organise a visa for Y to return to Australia.
5. The Applicant Mother submits that the maternal grandmother is unable to look after Y on a long term basis noting the maternal grandfather passed away and the maternal grandmother's health is deteriorating.
6. Pursuant to Order 3 of Orders dated 18 August 2025 the relevant documents were served on the Respondent's Mother (Mrs Parit) on 22 August 2025, as evidenced by a photo of her holding the received legal documents, in the Affidavit of Service filed on 25 August 2025.
7. Pursuant to Order 4, 6 and 8 of Orders dated 18 August 2025 the relevant documents were served on the Respondent's Mother (Mrs Parit) on 1 October 2025, as evidenced by a photo of her holding the received legal documents, in the Affidavit of Service filed on 6 October 2025.
8. Pursuant to rule 10.13(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), the court may vary or set aside an order made in the absence of a party.

1. Section 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provides that it is an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to one year to publish or disseminate to the public or a section of the public any account of family law proceedings which identifies the parties, witnesses or other people concerned with the proceedings, unless specifically authorised by the court.

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 a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. In this matter the applicant mother seeks parenting orders in respect of two children, the daughter, X, aged 13, and the son, Y who is aged 10. X and Y are the children of the applicant and her former husband, Mr Parit , who is the respondent in this proceeding.
2. The applicant mother seeks sole parental decision-making in relation to the children and that they both live with her. The mother also seeks orders which will enable her to make an application to the relevant department for an Australian passport for each of the children without the requirement for the father's consent and that the children be permitted to leave the Commonwealth without the father's consent. The applicant seeks these orders both on an interim and a final basis.
3. In the hearing today the applicant was represented by Ms Ferrari of counsel who sought leave for the matter to proceed today on a final basis, undefended. That is the first question I must consider, namely, whether I should grant leave to proceed undefended.
4. There are some unusual aspects of this case, so it is necessary to briefly refer to the background.

1. The applicant, Ms Karanth, is currently aged 37, and the respondent, her former husband, is aged 42. Based on an affidavit filed in support of these proceedings the applicant deposes that she and the respondent met as students in 2010 and married in 2011.
2. The parties' daughter, X, was born in Melbourne in 2012. Their son, Y, was born in 2015 in India when the parties were residing there temporarily to care for a family member.
3. In the mother's affidavit sworn on 2 June 2025 she deposes that she and the father separated in 2015 when Y was just an infant. The mother claims not to have seen or had any contact with the father since that date. For many years she did not know his whereabouts. She claims to have reached out to him after separation but she never received a response. After separation the mother deposes that she returned to Australia with X. X resides with the mother in a three-bedroom unit, and they are both now Australian citizens.
4. In her affidavit the mother deposes that because of her financial means as a single parent after separation, she made the difficult choice to leave Y in India in the care of the maternal grandparents. The result of those unfortunate circumstances is that the children have been separated since 2015, X living and attending school in Melbourne and Y living and attending school in India.
5. Y has been able to successfully live in those circumstances, notwithstanding no contact from the father, because he has had a very close relationship with the maternal grandparents, including in particular with the maternal grandfather, who Ms Ferrari described as being effectively a father figure for him.
6. Deputy Registrar Middleton of this Court made an order in April of this year pronouncing the applicant mother and father's divorce which took effect in mid-2025.
7. The mother has deposed that the father has had no contact with the children or any involvement in their lives. She has no effective means of contacting the father, but is now aware that he resides with his own parents.

1. The mother commenced the substantive proceedings by an application filed in July 2025. The application was supported by an affidavit affirmed on 11 July 2025 which forms the substantive evidence in this proceeding. The orders that the mother seeks will result in the children being reunited, able to live with her and continue their education in Australia in her care.
2. The issue of service of these proceedings has been problematic. Orders made in July 2025 required the mother to effect service of the application and all other filed documents on the respondent father. The orders stated that if the mother was unable to effect service, she should consider obtaining legal advice about service and explore alternative arrangements.
3. On 8 August 2025, the applicant filed an affidavit of service. That affidavit, which was sworn by a solicitor in India acting on her instructions, deposed that the solicitor had attended the home of the respondent's mother on 6 August 2025, and hand-delivered to her all relevant documents which at that time had been filed in the proceedings. Those included the initiating application, the mother's affidavit in support, the Genuine Steps certificate, a notice of risk, a brochure regarding family law proceedings and advice from a migration agent which explained why the mother was making the application she was.
4. As Ms Ferrari observed in her submissions this morning, the affidavit of service stated that the solicitor attended the respondent mother's house with those documents. It appears that the respondent's mother and the solicitor spoke with the respondent over the phone and he gave instructions for the respondent's mother to accept service on his behalf. The affidavit and, indeed, subsequent affidavits which I have read, confirm service in this matter and include photographs of the respondent's mother in possession of the documents served.
5. The first return hearing of this matter was on 18 August 2025 where Ms Ferrari appeared as counsel for the applicant. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the father. On that day Judicial Registrar Saidel made a number of orders regarding service and significant notations to those orders explaining why service upon the respondent's mother would be the acceptable course. Relevantly, those orders included that:

Possible undefended hearing

1. All outstanding applications are adjourned to Judge Forbes' List (for an in-person hearing) on 17 November 2025 at 10.00 am for a possible undefended hearing ("the adjourned hearing date"). For the purpose of the parties attending in person, the parties are required to attend court at 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000.

2. The Respondent appears by telephone or videoconference (or in person) on the adjourned hearing date with or without a legal representative.

Service with conditions

1. Pursuant to r 2.33 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), further service upon the Respondent of the Initiating Application filed (and Amended Initiating Application filed herein) is otherwise dismissed with on the condition that the Applicant on or before 4:00 pm on 25 August 2025 arrange personal service, in the care of the Respondent's Mother ([Mrs Parit] at [B Street, State C, India] a copy of these orders.

...

Affidavit of Service

1. The Applicant file an Affidavits of Service confirming such service (in accordance with order 3,4, 6 and 8) no later than five (5) business days prior to the adjourned hearing date.

1. The orders made that day included the following self-explanatory notations:

Possible undefended hearing

1. In the event the RESPONDENT fails to comply with these Orders and fails to attend Court on the next occasion, the APPLICANT proposes to seek that the final orders sought in the Amended Initiating Application filed herein be heard on an undefended basis on the adjourned hearing date in the absence of the RESPONDENT.

2. NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT: An undefended hearing is a hearing where the court considers the evidence and makes orders (including potentially, but not limited to, orders sought by the Applicant) in the Respondent's absence based solely on the uncontested evidence of the Applicant. Those orders may include orders that the Respondent pay some or all of the legal costs of the Applicant of bringing the application.

   1. A copy of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021(Cth) is available here.

   2. A copy of the Central Practice Direction - Family Law Case Management is available here.

   3. Court forms can be downloaded from the Court's website here.

   4. The court can help with family law procedural enquiries and questions. They can be contacted at 1300 352 000 (Monday to Friday, 8.30 am to 5.00 pm AEST).

Summary

1. Pursuant to the Applicant Mother's Affidavit of Service filed on 8 August 2025, the relevant documents were served on the Respondent Father's Mother [Mrs Parit] on 6 August 2025, as evidenced by a photo of her holding the received legal documents, following a telephone call with the Respondent Father.

2. Deputy Registrar Middleton of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, made an order on 14 April 2025, pronouncing the Applicant Mother and Respondent's Fathers divorce to take effect on 15 May 2025,

3. The Respondent Father did not participate in the divorce proceedings before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

4. To date, the Respondent Father has not filed a Notice of Address for Service, nor filed material on the Commonwealth Courts portal, nor contacted the Applicant Mother.

5. The Mother submits the Respondent Father has not spend time with the children since 2015. The child, [X] resides with the Mother in Australia. The child, [Y] resides in India with the maternal grandmother. The Respondent Father resides in India. The Mother submits Immigration lawyers require final orders of this Court to organise a visa for [Y] to return to Australia.

   1. The matter has been listed for a potential undefended hearing on the following basis:

      1. The Respondent Father has not spent time with the children since 2015;
      2. The Respondent Father did not participate in the divorce proceedings;
      3. The Mother submits the maternal grandmother is not able to look after the child on a long term basis noting the maternal grandfather passed away and the maternal grandmother's health is deteriorating.

   2. The Mother has been informed in the event the Respondent appears and or files the required documents, the matter may proceed on an interim basis and or further case management orders may be made.

...

1. On 22 August 2025 the applicant filed an amended application for final orders. On that day the solicitor in India, again acting on the applicant's instructions, served the amended application and a copy of the Judicial Registrar's orders on the respondent's mother. The solicitor who effected service provided a statement which described the method of personal service, including that there was again a telephone discussion between the respondent's mother and the respondent.
2. More recently, the applicant has filed an affidavit confirming service of the various documents and confirming also that the respondent has not filed any material or otherwise sought to engage in the proceedings.
3. On 6 October 2025, the applicant filed an outline of case dated 25 September 2025. That outline has also been served in the manner I have described. The solicitor in India has filed an affidavit confirming service of the outline and other relevant documents on 1 October 2025.

1. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the respondent is aware of the proceedings, is aware of the orders sought by the applicant, is aware that an application would be made today and is aware that the application might proceed on an undefended basis.
2. I am satisfied that the respondent has had an adequate opportunity to engage in the proceedings. I am satisfied that proper steps have been taken to bring the proceedings to the respondent's attention.
3. Consistent with the evidence that there has been no contact between the respondent and the applicant or his children for the best part of 10 years, the respondent has not made any attempt to participate in these proceedings. He is not in court today. He has not requested to appear electronically. The father has not contacted the court as far as I am aware. He has not participated in previous court events. When my associate called for the respondent outside the court today out of an abundance of caution, there was no appearance.
4. The respondent has not filed any documents. He has not filed a notice of address for service. He has not responded to the application. He has not requested an adjournment or proposed any alternative orders.
5. The Court rules prescribe the various steps the Court can take when a party fails to attend a court event. Those include that the Court can proceed with the hearing generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceeding.
6. Court rules also make provision for things that can be done when there is a default by a party. Undoubtedly, there has been a default by the respondent in this case because he has failed to respond, failed to provide a notice of address for service, failed to attend court when directed to do so, and failed to respond to the application.
7. The Court rules provide that in exceptional circumstances the Court can allow a party to proceed undefended, and when that occurs the proceeding will go forward on the non-defaulting party's evidence without hearing from the defaulting party.
8. When applying the rules the Court must give particular consideration to the overarching purpose of the family law practice and procedure provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), that requires the Court to facilitate the just resolution of disputes according to law and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible.
9. I have also considered the objective of the overarching purpose contained in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), which requires the just determination of all proceedings, the efficient use of judicial and administrative resources available to the Court, the efficient disposal of the overall caseload, disposing of proceedings in a timely manner, and resolving disputes at a cost which is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matters in dispute.
10. For the reasons I have articulated to this point, I am content to grant leave to the applicant mother to proceed on an undefended basis.

1. The Full Court in Lanceley & Lanceley [1994] FamCA 94; (1994) 118 FLR 158 made it clear that an undefended hearing does not, however, lead to a judgment by default. The Court must still decide on the evidence before it, that the applicant is entitled in law to the relief claimed and that, in the exercise of its discretion, it is appropriate to grant that relief.
2. Ms Ferrari, who appeared on behalf of the applicant, agreed that determination of this matter on a final basis does require the Court to consider the application in accordance with the normal statutory pathway, including by giving primary consideration to the safety and best interests of the children.
3. The evidence advanced in support of the application is that contained in the mother's principal affidavit dated 2 June 2025.
4. It is not necessary for me to restate the way in which the Court should approach the final determination of this matter, save to say that the following matters inform my consideration of what constitutes the best interests of the children. Those include consideration of the various matters specified in section 60CC(2) of the Act.
5. The critical aspect of - or the standout aspect of this particular application is that the children have lived without the involvement of their father for the best part of 10 years. The daughter, X, who is now 13 years old has lived with the mother for 10 years and will have, at best, a vague recollection of her father.
6. I do not think there could be any contest that Y, the son, would have no recollection of his father. Since the age of four months, Y has not had his father in his life and there would not appear to be any evidence of the father having sought to discharge any parental duties, responsibilities or obligations in relation to his son.
7. It is self-evident from the evidence that the siblings X and Y have been separated for many years, one living in Australia and one living in India. That is not an ideal situation and from the evidence provided by the applicant mother, it appears that, notwithstanding the distance between them, the siblings speak very regularly and have a strong bond.
8. I am informed that Y, even though living in India, has learnt to speak English and is fluent. He and his sister, who lives in Australia, speak in English. There should be no impediment to them fostering a relationship if they can be brought together.
9. There is no evidence before me that if the children are brought together and live with the mother, that they would be subjected to any safety concerns. Indeed, the mother has, on the evidence, shown herself to be adept at caring for her daughter, adept at remaining in contact with her son, adept in providing support to her parents in India, adept at providing an educational pathway for the daughter here in Australia and supporting the payment of private education for the son in India.
10. I have no reason to believe that the mother presents any risk at all to these two children. By bringing them together, the two children can attend the same school. That will have the advantage of the mother being able to take the children to school together.
11. I am satisfied that the mother will be better equipped to provide psychological support for Y and to integrate him into their shared life in Australia than the maternal grandparents can currently do.
12. A significant impetus for the current application is that the maternal grandfather has sadly passed away. As I mentioned earlier, I am informed that there was a very close bond between Y and the maternal grandfather, and that he stood, in effect, as a father figure. He is obviously no longer able to do that, which leaves Y without that father figure and in circumstances where his biological father has gone missing from his life.
13. I am further informed that the maternal grandmother has experienced difficulties in continuing to care for Y, particularly in circumstances where she does not drive, leaving Y with a three-hour round-trip to school each and every day. That cannot be beneficial to him and in time is likely to impact his education.
14. On the evidence before me there would appear to be no relationship between the father and the children, as I have said numerous times, nor any relationship between any member of the father's family and the children. On the evidence before me, there does not appear to be any basis to believe that these orders, which will result in the mother having sole parental responsibility for Y and Y living with her, will have any material adverse impact on the father or his side of the family.
15. In terms of the wishes of the children, I have been informed through the mother's affidavit that Y is increasingly asking whether he can live with her, and I accept that evidence. It would seem to me that reuniting Y with his mother and his sister can only be beneficial for all of them.
16. I am satisfied that the mother is in a position to support the developmental, psychological and emotional needs of the children. In terms of cultural needs, the mother is herself of Indian heritage, and therefore the children living with her, I would expect, would continue to enjoy the benefit of their culture.

1. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children to make the orders sought by the applicant mother, and orders will be made in those terms.

I certify that the preceding forty-seven (47) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Forbes.