Getting your Indian property valued for a divorce in Australia or the UK

An ordinary Indian valuation report, the kind prepared for a bank, is usually not enough for a foreign family court. The number may be perfectly sound. What is missing is everything around the number: the declaration of independence, the valuer's qualifications set out for a judge who has never seen an Indian credential, the stated basis of value, and a valuation date that matches the one the court is working to.

Get those wrong and the report gets challenged, or quietly ignored, which is worse because you have already paid for it.

Your Indian property is in the pool. All of it.

Under Australia's Family Law Act, the property pool includes assets held anywhere in the world. Both parties owe full and frank disclosure. The flat in Pune is in, whether or not the other side knew about it.

England and Wales work the same way through Form E financial disclosure, which asks for worldwide assets. Canadian provincial regimes bring in worldwide property as well, through Ontario's net family property equalisation and British Columbia's family property rules. New Zealand's relationship property legislation reaches foreign assets too.

There is no version of this where the Indian property is out of scope because it is in India.

The single biggest technical point: which date

Foreign courts do not all value as at today, and getting this wrong makes the report useless.

• England and Wales. Generally close to the date of the hearing, so a current valuation, sometimes updated if proceedings run long.
• Ontario. Three dates: date of marriage, date of separation and current. All three, in one report.
• British Columbia and Alberta. Typically two, commonly the date of separation and current.
• New Zealand. Under the relationship property regime the default is the date of hearing rather than the date you separated, which surprises people.
• Australia. Usually the date of trial or agreement, not separation.

Tell us the jurisdiction and the dates your solicitor has specified before we start. Retrospective valuation is entirely doable, using the notified rates and recorded transactions of that period, but it has to be commissioned as such.

The single joint expert model

In English financial remedy proceedings the default is one expert, jointly instructed and jointly paid, whose duty runs to the court rather than to either party. That regime sits in Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules with Practice Direction 25D. Australia's family courts operate a similar single expert default.

Practically, that means both solicitors agree on the valuer and send a joint letter of instruction. If one side commissions a report alone without permission, expect it to carry very little weight.

Canada and the United States are different. There is no uniform single joint expert rule, and each side more often instructs its own appraiser, or the parties agree to split one.

What a court facing report must contain

• A statement of independence, confirming no interest in the property or the outcome and that the duty is to the court.
• The valuer's CV and registration number, written so a foreign judge can understand what the credential is and verify it.
• The basis of value, stated explicitly, and the valuation date or dates.
• The instructions received, reproduced, so it is clear what question was asked.
• The methodology and the comparable evidence, with each comparison and adjustment shown rather than asserted.
• Assumptions and limitations, including anything not inspected and any title matter taken on trust.
• Dated site photographs.
• A currency conversion, with the rate and its source and date, where the court works in pounds or dollars.

Getting it accepted abroad

Some courts are wary of an expert who cannot be cross examined locally. Depending on the jurisdiction you may be asked for the report to be notarised or apostilled, or for a sworn affidavit in place of live testimony. Ask your solicitor early which of these applies, because an apostille takes time.

We prepare reports knowing they may be read by somebody with no familiarity with Indian property documentation, so the credential and the method are explained rather than assumed.

When the other side disputes the number

It happens, and it is not a crisis. Where two reports disagree, courts look at method rather than at the figure: which comparables, which adjustments, which date, what was actually inspected. A report that shows its working survives that scrutiny. A one page letter with a figure does not.

A note on enforcement

A foreign court can make orders about the parties. Actually transferring or selling Indian immovable property usually needs steps in India as well, and Indian courts are not bound to give automatic effect to every foreign order. That is a question for your Indian lawyer, and it is worth asking before you agree terms that depend on a quick transfer. We value the asset. We do not advise on enforcement, and anybody who tells you it is simple is guessing.