The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi rejected an appeal by a woman against her divorcee, demanding that her daughter's monthly alimony and custody fare be increased, the amount of fun and equipment required, and that her divorcee be required to provide a maid, a car and a driver for them.The court upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeal while exempting the appellant from the fee and insurance.
The details of the case are due to a woman filing a lawsuit with the court of first instance against her divorcee, demanding that she be sentenced for alimony, fun, custody fare, alimony for her newborn daughter, fare for the nursery, a maid with her recruitment and salary expenses, and a car and driver with her recruitment and salary expenses and forcing her divorcee to hand over her special purposes.
The court of first instance ruled that her husband should pay 3,000 dirhams for each period, 12,000 dirhams for fun, 12,500 dirhams per month for custody fare from the date of the judicial claim, and 1,000 dirhams per month for the girl child, including transportation and water and electricity consumption. The Court of Appeal ruled that the appeal was rejected and upheld the appealed judgment.
The woman said that the appealed judgment was wrong when she did not spend a car with her driver, maid and nursery house, and specified in her maintenance kit, her pleasure, her custody fare and her daughter's expenses the minimum amount that suits the financial situation of the appellant against him, which required her to eliminate all her rejected applications, and in amounts exceeding what he specified. Appellate judgment.
The Court of Cassation affirmed that the Court has full authority to obtain an understanding of the reality of the case, and to determine alimony and its sub-categories in general, such as transportation, service, custody, housing and pleasure without supervision, as long as its judgment is based on sufficient reasons to carry it, and that it is not obliged to follow the adversaries in various aspects of their defenses. And their words.
She pointed out that the appellant against him did not prove that he has an income other than his salary of 17 thousand dirhams, which the appellant did not provide any evidence of possession of others, and his financial situation could not be compelled to bind the appellant request of the car, driver, maid and large rent for the house.
The court stated that the amounts set by her for the expenses of the appellant, her pleasure, her custody fare and her daughter's comprehensive transportation expenses, fit the elements stipulated in Article 63 of the Personal Status Law, taking into account the condition of the spender and the spender and the time and place they live in. Therefore, the whole obituary is merely a substantive controversy in the reality of the case, and the opinion of the Court of First Instance shall be independent and the censorship of the Court of Cassation shall recede from the consequent rejection of the appeal.
• The woman did not prove that her divorcee had an income other than his salary of AED 17,000.