The Federal Supreme Court upheld the absolute custodial right of two children to increase alimony six years after its approval, citing the high cost of living, the large incubators and their needs, as well as the salary of their father who married another woman.
In detail, Mutlaqah filed a lawsuit against her divorcee, demanding increased alimony for the children and a furniture allowance, explaining to the court that she was “the wife of the defendant, gave birth to two children, and had previously imposed alimony under a judgment”, and filed a claim against her requesting the reduction of alimony previously convicted. Abolish the implementation of the provision of housing allowance and abolish the incubator fare.
The court of first instance ruled to increase the alimony imposed on the children, to AED 6000 per month instead of AED 4000, equally between them and an increase, as of the date of the judicial claim, provided that the expense after the increase includes food, clothing, medicine, treatment and water and electricity bills.
The court also ordered the defendant to pay 10,000 dirhams for a one-time furniture allowance.
The Court of Appeal then overturned the first judgment on what he ordered to increase alimony and the judiciary again to dismiss the case, and to uphold the judgment otherwise. The mother of the two children did not accept this verdict, and she appealed against it by way of cassation, stating that the judgment violated the law and the law and erroneously in their application and violated the fixed papers and violated the right of defense, when he ordered the cancellation of the first sentence, which increased the previously imposed alimony, although that maintenance is fixed in the papers that it has been imposed More than six years, the cost of living has risen, prices have increased, the incubators have grown and their needs have increased. The plaintiff also asserted that her divorced person is well off and supports only another wife and has a child born with whom her request for increased alimony has come according to changing circumstances.
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the plaintiff's appeal, stating that the decision was legally and pursuant to article 64 of the Personal Status Law, which provided that maintenance could be increased and decreased according to changing circumstances.A claim of increase or decrease would not be heard before one year of imposing maintenance except in exceptional cases.
Moreover, the decision to reject the ruling demanded an increase in the cost of custody despite more than a year of imposing it and proving the high cost of living in violation of the law and Sharia and wrong in their application.
The Court concluded that the appeal judgment did not comply with this consideration in its decision to cancel the first judgment to increase the maintenance of the daughters, it would have violated the law properly to be overturned and decided.