A wheelchair-bound mother of four, who suffers from cerebral palsy and speaks with the help of a computer, has launched a court battle to evict her ex-husband after he moved his new wife into their ten-bedroom family home. .
Saqiba Sattar, who was born with this disease, divorced her husband Muhammad Alam in 2022 after almost 20 years of marriage.
The couple, who share four children aged between six and 19, still live in the two-storey family home in Punchbowl, south-west of Sydney, which was built to suit Ms Sattar’s needs.
Mr. Alam lives upstairs, while Mrs. Sattar lives downstairs.
This is despite Alam remarrying a woman named Rifat Jasmine in Bangladesh shortly after the divorce was finalized in 2022.
Mrs Sattar, who receives full-time NDIS-funded home care, 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 things appear to have come to a head in August when Alam moved his new wife, who speaks no English, into the family home.
The move prompted Sattar to file a lawsuit asking for “urgent interlocutory relief,” with the aim of evicting his new wife, Rifat.
Saqiba Sattar, who was born with cerebral palsy, divorced her husband Muhammad Alam in 2022 after almost 20 years of marriage.
In the end, Ms Sattar failed in her attempt, with Judge James Hmelnitsky ruling that “although it is a matter that undoubtedly causes pain and humiliation to the plaintiff, Rifat is married to the second defendant and now helps with childcare.” .
The ruling, published on October 15, states that Mr. Alam is the primary caregiver for the couple’s four children.
“I accept that the current situation is emotionally disturbing and humiliating for the plaintiff,” Judge Hmelnitsky said.
“The decision of the second defendant to transfer Rifat to the Punchbowl house, given the current situation between the plaintiff and the second defendant, seems provocative to me.”
Despite this, Judge Hmelnitsky ruled that “the balance of convenience favors maintaining the current unpleasant situation for the time being.”
«The Punchbowl house is very large and, although it has not been possible for Rifat to completely isolate herself from the plaintiff (the plaintiff can see her entering and leaving the house and smell the odors from the kitchen, for example), most of the time has been able to do so,” adds the sentence.
The couple, who share four children aged between six and 19, still live in a huge two-storey, ten-bedroom family home in Punchbowl, south-west of Sydney, which was built to suit Ms Sattar’s needs. Mr. Alam lives upstairs, while Mrs. Sattar lives downstairs.
“Common sense dictates that both she and the second defendant must do everything possible to respect the plaintiff’s privacy.”
Speaking through the screen of a phone on which she was typing her responses, Sattar told Daily Mail Australia that her ex-husband’s decision to move his new wife into the house made her feel “very bad.”
Sattar’s older children are understood to be encouraging her to let their father stay in the house.
Meanwhile, Mr Alam told this publication that the current situation remains “because of the children”.
‘The case was dismissed. I can live in this house, everything is fine,’ he said.
Alam said his children liked his new wife and the situation was not awkward.
‘It’s better for children. It’s about the kids and whether they’re happy. “My new wife prepares food for them,” he added.
Alam said he and his ex-wife only talked about the children and “nothing else.” “If they need anything, she asks me: money, food, things like that… nothing more,” he said.
“We don’t know each other.”
The couple, who share four children aged between six and 19, still live in a huge two-storey, ten-bedroom family home (pictured) in Punchbowl, south-west of Sydney, which was built to suit the needs of Mrs Sattar. Mr. Alam lives upstairs, while Mrs. Sattar lives downstairs.
Ms Sattar and Mr Alam bought the house together for $428,000 in 2007.
In 2014, the house was renamed to Ms Sattar’s mother, Qamar Sattar, who died in October 2019.
Two weeks before his death, he drafted a new will which “has given rise to serious disputes over the terms under which the Punchbowl house will be owned by whom,” the ruling said.
Mrs Sattar appointed her daughter’s husband, Mr Alam, as administrator of her will and ordered that her grandchildren could “stay as long as they wished” on the Punchbowl estate.
“My main concern is that my daughter Saqiba Mehar Sattar spends the rest of her life comfortably, with her children and her husband,” the will states.
Alam told this publication that the current situation remains “because of the children.”
The will added: “The Trustee (Mr Alam) must not, under any circumstances, give permission to anyone other than those specified in this will, to live at (the Punchbowl house).”
Mrs Sattar has argued through her lawyers that she has the right to be the “sole beneficiary” of the Punchbowl mansion and that her ex-husband “does not have the right to occupy the house”, which is why she intends to evict him.
This is despite the fact that he claims to have made all the mortgage payments.
‘She stated that if in her case she is right that she is the only one who has a right to the Punchbowl house under the will, then at that point she will be entitled to possession and therefore to exclude Rifat (and the second defendant ) of the facilities as an intruder,” the ruling states.
‘In contrast, the second defendant pointed out that the will clearly contemplates that in any case he has the right to continue occupying the premises to continue caring for the children and that, if it were correctly drawn up, he would have the right to do the same with his wife.
Judge Hmelnitsky said neither Alam nor his new wife wanted to live apart and, if forced to do so, the children would likely move in with their father.
“If the outcome of the final proceedings is that the second defendant has no right to continue occupying the Punchbowl house, I take it that he, Rifat and the children will move out,” Judge Hmelnitsky added.
The dispute over the terms of the will will come up for a final hearing before the Supreme Court in February.