The civil court in Ras Al Khaimah decided to compel a (Gulf) wife to lead to her husband (Khaleeji) 50 thousand and 500 dirhams and 9% interest, after the husband accused her of embezzling the amount of 70 thousand without his knowledge and without a right deed, while the wife decided to spend the amount to bring a servant and pay car violations .
In the lawsuit, the husband explained that he authorized his wife to receive 100 thousand dirhams from a consulting company, but she embezzled 70 thousand dirhams from the amount given to her as a trust and took it for herself, and demanded that she be punished according to the Federal Penal Code.
The Public Prosecution issued a criminal order to fine the accused with 2000 dirhams, and obliged it to pay the due fee, as it is one of the crimes in which the law permitted the prosecution to issue the criminal order with a fine, as the defendant did not appeal the ruling what made it final, prompting the husband to file a civil lawsuit before the civil court, To claim his right and recover the embezzled amount.
Attorney Abdullah Sarhan, in the lawsuit newspaper, demanded that the wife be obliged to pay 70 thousand dirhams that had been seized by embezzlement, and obligated her to pay 10 thousand dirhams in material and moral compensation for the material and psychological damage suffered by the claimant as a result of embezzlement, and to obligate her with a legal interest of 12% from the date Filing a lawsuit until payment, and obliging it to pay fees and expenses and in exchange for attorney fees.
For his part, the wife's lawyer confirmed that she repaid the husband 43,000 dirhams, and spent the money on the house from paying the servant recruitment, renewing the car licenses, and paying the violations.
The civil court examined the lawsuit and stated that it is proven in the papers that the wife receive 100,000 dirhams from an engineering consulting company on behalf of the husband, and that she did not deny it, and also failed to prove that she returned the money to the plaintiff, despite referring the case to the investigation.
The court clarified that what was stated in its statements in the investigations of the Public Prosecution was not corroborated by physical evidence or the presence of a witness that it had spent the money on the house by bringing in a maid, renewing car licenses or paying violations, unless the court reassured him of its defense.
The court refused the request to compensate the husband for the damage he had suffered, because he had not provided evidence of his material loss because he had not received the amount.