A wheelchair-bound mother-of-four who suffers from cerebral palsy and speaks with the aid of a computer has launched a court battle to kick out her ex-husband after he moved his new wife into their ten-bedroom family home.
Saqiba Sattar, who was born with the condition, divorced her husband Muhammad Alam in 2022 after almost 20 years of marriage.
The couple, who share four children together aged between six and 19, both still live in the two-storey family home in Punchbowl, south west Sydney, which was built to accommodate Ms Sattar’s needs.
Mr Alam lives upstairs, while Ms Sattar lives downstairs.
This is despite Mr Alam remarrying a woman called Rifat Jasmine in Bangladesh shortly after the divorce was finalised in 2022.
Ms Sattar, who receives full-time in-home care funded by the NDIS, has been trying to evict her husband since March last year when she lodged a claim in the NSW Supreme Court over the terms of her mother’s will.
But matters appear to have come to a head in August when Mr Alam moved his new wife, who does not speak English, into the family home.
The move prompted Ms Sattar to launch a court claim for ‘urgent interlocutory relief’, seeking to evict his new wife, Ms Rifat.
Saqiba Sattar, who was born with cerebral palsy, divorced her husband Muhammad Alam in 2022 after almost 20 years of marriage
Ultimately, Ms Sattar failed in her bid, with Justice James Hmelnitsky ruling that ‘although it is a matter that unquestionably causes grief and humiliation to the plaintiff, Rifat is married to the second defendant and now assists with the care of the children’.
The judgment, published on October 15, notes that Mr Alam is the primary carer of the couple’s four children.
‘I accept that the present situation is emotionally upsetting and humiliating for the plaintiff,’ Justice Hmelnitsky said.
‘The decision by the second defendant to move Rifat into the Punchbowl house given the present situation between the plaintiff and the second defendant strikes me as provocative.’
Despite this, Justice Hmelnitsky ruled that ‘the balance of convenience favours the maintenance of the present unpalatable situation for the time being.’
‘The Punchbowl house is very large and, although it has not proved possible for Rifat to isolate herself from the plaintiff entirely (the plaintiff can see her coming and going from the house and can smell cooking smells, for example), she has mostly been able to do so,’ the judgment added.
The couple, who share four children together aged between six and 19, both still live in a hulking ten bedroom, two-storey family home in Punchbowl, south west Sydney, which was built to accommodate Ms Sattar’s needs. Mr Alam lives upstairs, while Ms Sattar lives downstairs
‘Common sense dictates that both she and the second defendant should do their utmost to respect the plaintiff’s privacy.’
Speaking through the aid of a phone screen on which she typed her answers, Ms Sattar told Daily Mail Australia that her ex-husband’s decision to move his new wife into the house made her feel ‘very bad’.
It’s understood Ms Sattar’s older children are encouraging her to let their father remain in the house.
Meanwhile, Mr Alam told this publication that the present situation was being maintained ‘because of the kids’.
‘The case was dismissed. I can live in this house, it’s all good,’ he said.
Mr Alam said that his children liked his new wife and that the situation was not awkward.
‘It’s better for the kids. It’s all about the kids and whether they’re happy. My new wife makes the food for them,’ he added.
Mr Alam said he and his ex-wife just spoke about the kids and ‘nothing else’. ‘If they need something then she asks me, money, food, these things – nothing else,’ he said.
‘We don’t know each other.’
The couple, who share four children together aged between six and 19, both still live in a hulking ten bedroom, two-storey family home (pictured) in Punchbowl, south west Sydney , which was built to accommodate Ms Sattar’s needs. Mr Alam lives upstairs, while Ms Sattar lives downstairs
Ms Sattar and Mr Alam bought the home together for $428,000 in 2007.
In 2014, the home was transferred into the name of Ms Sattar’s mother, Qamar Sattar who died in October 2019.
Two weeks before her death she drew up a new will that has ‘given rise to serious dispute as to the terms of which the Punchbowl house is to be held and by whom’, the judgment noted.
Mrs Sattar appointed her daughter’s husband, Mr Alam, to be the trustee of her will and instructed that her grandchildren could ‘stay as long as they want’ in the Punchbowl property.
‘My main concern is that my daughter Saqiba Mehar Sattar will spend the rest of her life in comfort, with her Children and her Husband,’ the will noted.
Mr Alam told this publication that the present situation was being maintained ‘because of the kids’
The will added: ‘The Trustee (Mr Alam) must not give permission, under any circumstances, to anyone other than those specified in this Will, to live in [the Punchbowl house].’
Ms Sattar has argued through her lawyers that she is entitled to be the ‘sole beneficiary’ of the Punchbowl mansion and that her ex-husband has ‘no entitlement to occupy the house’, which is why she is seeking to evict him.
This is despite him claiming to have made all of the mortgage repayments.
‘She submitted that if she is correct in her case that she alone is entitled to the Punchbowl house under the Will, then she will at that stage be entitled to possession and therefore to exclude Rifat (and the second defendant) from the premises as a trespasser,’ the judgment noted.
‘Against this, the second defendant pointed out that the Will clearly contemplates that he is in any event entitled to continue to occupy the premises in order to continue to care for the children and that, on its proper construction, he would be entitled to do so with his wife.’
Justice Hmelnitsky said that neither Mr Alam or his new wife wanted to live separately and, if they were forced to, the children would likely move with their father.
‘If the upshot of the final proceedings is that the second defendant is not entitled to continue to occupy the Punchbowl house, I infer that that he, Rifat and the children will all move away,’ Justice Hmelnitsky added.
The dispute over the terms of the will is listed for a final hearing before the Supreme Court in February.
***
Read more at DailyMail.co.uk