The Federal Supreme Court upheld a ruling that obliged an absolute obligation to pay fifty thousand dirhams, a dowry for his divorce, as well as the prescribed expenses, with the mother receiving custody of their child, rejecting the appeal of the Public Prosecution against the verdict, and affirming that the verdict was true.
In detail, a woman filed a lawsuit against her divorcee, demanding proof of her divorce from the defendant with the back of the dowry and custody of her daughter and expenses and its aftermath, following the divorce made at the sole discretion of the defendant.
The Court of First Instance ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the back of her friendship of fifty thousand dirhams with custody of the girl and expenses and accessories and expenses alimony and alimony and installments, and upheld by the Court of Appeal, with the modification of custody fare.
The Attorney General challenged this ruling, as he accepted the amended request of the plaintiff in a hearing absent from the opponent and did not know of the amended request to raise the value of the dowry to fifty thousand dirhams and did not declare a breach of the principle of confrontation in the dispute and the rules of justice.
The Federal Supreme Court rejected this appeal, stating that the invalidity is a description of the procedure for violating the law and leads to the non-production of the effect prescribed by the law, and that the origin in the health procedures and that they were done as prescribed by the legislator, and the procedure is invalid if the law stipulates that the law is invalid or if it is fundamentally defective or Deficiency is not achieved because of the purpose of the procedure.
The court pointed out that it is evident from the case file that the proceedings have been corrected within the framework set by the legislator and as explained by the preliminary judgment and the appeal judgment and that the dowry's request and its value was in the presence of the sentencing agent who acknowledged the plaintiff's right to this amount and did not dispute it. The fact that he was not objected at any stage of the litigation and therefore obituary is misplaced, which should be rejected.
The Federal Supreme Court also rejected the Attorney General's appeal against the verdict.
The court stated that it is decided by article 52/2 of the Personal Status Law that the dowry must be in the correct contract and is confirmed in full by the correct entry or death, and the deferred shall be dissolved by death or Baynunah and that it is established from the judgment file that the plaintiff demanded her dowry specified in the marriage contract concluded. An amount not exceeding the maximum limit referred to in the dowry law no. 21 for the year 1997 and in the amount of only fifty thousand dirhams, which was not disputed by the defendant, but admitted in the hearing the eligibility of the plaintiff before the court of first instance of the dowry and its value was in the presence of the convicted agent and was not Replace the objection or objection in it only Tinav not at any stage of the litigation, not to mention or not to mention the defendant's claim that he paid part of the former dowry.