The Federal Supreme Court upheld a ruling requiring Mutlaq to pay 50,000 dirhams of dowry for his divorce, as well as the prescribed expenses, with the mother receiving custody of their child, rejecting the public prosecutor's appeal against the verdict, confirming 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 accessories, following the divorce that was made by the defendant's sole will.
The Court of First Instance ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the back of her friendship, amounting to 50,000 dirhams, with custody of the girl, expenses and accessories, alimony and alimony expenses, and upheld by the Court of Appeal, with the adjustment of custody.
On the other hand, the Attorney General challenged this verdict, as he accepted the amended request of the plaintiff in a hearing absent from the opponent.He did not know of the amended request to raise the value of the dowry to 50,000 dirhams, and did not declare it in breach of the principle of confrontation in litigation 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, which leads to the non-production of the effect prescribed by the law, and that the origin in the health procedures, and that it was done as prescribed by the legislator, and the procedure is invalid, as the law stipulates that it is invalid, or if An intrinsic defect or deficiency has not been achieved because of the purpose of the procedure.
The court pointed out that it is evident from the case file that the proceedings were correct within the framework laid down by the legislator, as indicated 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 at the hearing acknowledged the plaintiff's right to this amount, In addition, he was not disputed at any stage of the litigation, and therefore misplaced, to be rejected.
The Federal Supreme Court also rejected the Attorney General's appeal against the ruling.
The court stated that it is decided, according to article 52/2 of the Personal Status Law, that the dowry must be in the right contract, and that all is confirmed by entry or the right retreat or death, and the defendant is dissolved by death or Baynunah, and that it is established from the file of the judgment that the plaintiff demanded her specified dowry In the marriage contract concluded, and in an amount not exceeding the limits referred to in the dowry law No. 21 of 1997, and in the amount of only 50 thousand dirhams, which was not disputed by the defendant, but acknowledged at the hearing the eligibility of the plaintiff before the Court of First Instance dowry And its value, was in the presence of the convicted agent, and was not subject to appeal or objection from E at the appeal or at any stage of the litigation, not to mention the defendant's claim that he had already paid part of the dowry.
The origin of the procedure is health, and it was done as prescribed by the legislator.