The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling in favor of a woman who demanded that her divorce be signed by her husband over the telephone and that she receive expenses for her and her child. The court stated that the state's jurisdiction was not to be examined by the court, except for the maintenance of the wife, Establishment of spouse in the State.
In the details, a woman filed a lawsuit against her husband and her husband, explaining that she married in her country and gave birth to her son, who is currently two and a half years old. Then her husband divorced her after nine months on the phone. He informed all of her family and family and did not review her during the period.
As for the second defendant, he is the grandfather of her son, who is responsible for him in law and law within the state in the absence of the husband, who is responsible for spending on him and asked for the ruling to prove her divorce and to prove her son's ratios to him and to oblige the defendants together, And the maintenance of her house and the cost of her custody, and handing over all the supporting documents of her own after being extracted from the official bodies.
The first-degree court ordered the husband to pay 1,500 dirhams a month and the child's maintenance costs 2,000 dirhams per month, while continuing to be legally shunned.
And ruled not to have jurisdiction to decide on the rest of the applications in the face of the absolute, and not to accept the case against the father of the absolute.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the ruling of the First Judgment on the non-jurisdiction of the Court, the jurisdiction of the Court, the return of the papers to it for adjudication, the postponement of the decision on expenses, the cancellation of the judgment of the inadmissibility of the case for the divorced father, The applicant pays the sum of 1000 dirhams per month for maintenance of the minor, and the amendment of the stipend from the marital expenses, and make it 1000 dirhams per month.
Both the plaintiff and his father did not agree with this ruling, and we challenged him before the Federal Supreme Court.
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, explaining that «the decision by the law of the text of Article V of the Personal Status Law, the courts of the State shall be competent to hear cases concerning matters of personal status that are brought against citizens and foreigners who have a home or place of residence or place of work in the State», That "the courts of the State shall have jurisdiction over cases concerning personal status that are brought against an alien who has no place of residence, place of residence or place of work in the State, in the case of seven, which are included exclusively in this article."
The court pointed out that "the papers confirm that the defendant has no home, place of residence, or place of work in the State, whereas the wife and her son are domiciled in the State and that the action against the divorced person includes the following applications, proof of divorce, , The expenses of marriage, pleasure and equipment, the cost of the nursery, proof of custody of the child child maintenance, custody fees, receipt of identification papers ».
Article 6 did not apply to this case except in the third paragraph, which read: "If the action relates to a request for maintenance for the parents, the spouse or the minor when they have a home, place of residence or place of employment in the State", and the fourth paragraph, On a small person who has a domicile or residence in the State, so that the courts of the State have no jurisdiction over the said applications other than the maintenance of the wife and the confirmation of the child's proportions and the expenses thereof.
She pointed out that the ruling on appeal did not require this consideration in the cancellation of the first sentence, which is not jurisdiction of the state, and the jurisdiction of the court violation, the judiciary is not in accordance with the correct law, which is defective and must be revoked.
The court stated that the provision of article 78 of the Personal Status Law stipulated that the child should be paid to his father, and that the father should not be obliged to pay the son of his son as long as his son is present and carries out his work, The proceedings against the second defendant have been brought against a person who is not qualified in the case and is inadmissible in form, which requires a revocation of the judgment in this case.
The Court accepted the appeal of the plaintiff's claim that the sentence was not appropriate for the husband and his minor expenses. He works as a laborer and earns a monthly salary of AED 1170, explaining that the ruling of the appeal was amended to amend the first ruling, , To be in the amount of 1000 dirhams per month, and maintenance of the child in the amount of 1000 dirhams per month without taking into account the case of the spender who failed to benefit from the paper income.
- The plaintiff married in her, and gave birth to her son, then
Her husband divorced her nine months later by telephone,
And so he told all his family and family.