Page:Ryba & Achthoven (2024, FedCFamC1F).pdf/14

(c) one of the names of the applicant's mother had been deleted^[1] and then identically reinserted, the amendment having been initiated by someone;

(d) the two signatures of the persons allegedly giving notice of the intended marriage (the applicant and the respondent, allegedly) appear immediately above the date "20.11.2023";

(e) the signature of the respondent on the notice of intended marriage closely corresponds with and is nearly identical to the signature of the respondent on his affidavit made 23 September 2024;

(f) the signature of the applicant on the notice of intended marriage bears no resemblance to and looks nothing like the applicant's signature on her 12 September 2024 affidavit filed in this proceeding;

(g) the celebrant Mr C allegedly signed the notice of intended marriage on 20 November 2023;

(h) the applicant's overseas passport number was allegedly set out on the notice of intended marriage;

(i) the respondent's overseas passport number was allegedly set out on the notice of intended marriage; and

(j) Mr C allegedly signed the certificate in late December 2023 after the ceremony.

40 So far as the date 20 November 2023 was concerned, being the date on which the applicant and respondent allegedly signed the notice of intended marriage before the celebrant Mr C, the applicant deposed to –

(a) not travelling to Sydney on that date; and

(b) having no contact whatsoever with the celebrant prior to the date of the alleged ceremony.

41 She also deposed to never authorising Mr C to lodge the purported notice of intended marriage with any government body.

42 The applicant filed an affidavit made on 26 September 2024 in which she answered the assertions made by the respondent in his 23 September 2024 affidavit. To better understand

1. The word "[…]" of the names [applicant's mother's name] had been struck through then reinstated.

---