The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of a man against an appeal judgment that obliged him to pay 500 dirhams for his divorce, in return for the breastfeeding fee of his two young sons. The court concluded that his divorcee was not entitled to this amount, as the two children completed two years from the date of divorce.
The husband said that "the judgment of appeal to the divorced for a fee breastfeeding, although it did not provide proof that it can not breastfeeding, in violation of the law, which flawed the ruling and requires revocation in this regard."
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the husband's appeal, stating that "it is legally prescribed by article 79 of the Personal Status Code that" the father has the costs of breastfeeding his son if the mother is unable to breastfeed and this is considered alimony. The mother who breastfeed like her and was in the infallibility of the father does not have a request for fare breastfeeding, because Shara obliged them to do not deserve a duty duty.
The Supreme Court affirmed that "the mother must breastfeed her child in the period of breastfeeding if she is in the infallibility of the husband or several divorces in the period of breastfeeding, if she is in the infallibility of the husband or several divorce retroactively from him, unless the breastfeeding the child is harmful to her feared harm."
She pointed out that "the plaintiff's mother, has requested the wages of breastfeeding in the infallibility of the defendant, it does not deserve the wage of breastfeeding at the time, and begins to be entitled to the wage of breastfeeding from the date of divorce from the defendant a defective shot and the process of divorce is absolute and then her daughters have completed the annuals and so they do not deserve a wage Breastfeeding. "
The court concluded that the appeal judgment contradicted this consideration of its support for the award of the breastfeeding wage, which would have violated the law properly, which should be overturned while addressing.
A wife had filed a lawsuit against her husband for divorce, custody of children and expenses.
The court of first instance ruled to divide them with a second shot of schism preceded by a retrograde shot and the plaintiff several of the process of judgment, and obliging the defendant to pay the plaintiff a thousand dirhams per month marital expense, fixing the custody of the plaintiff for her three children, obliging the defendant to pay a thousand dirhams per month expense for each of the The children have to pay AED 1,000 per month to the plaintiff for a nursery fee, AED 500 for the nursing of the two young women from the date of application until they reach two full years, AED 2,500 per month for the nursery or to provide the nursery with a choice of AED 1,000 for the electricity, water and internet allowance for the nursery. Dora Bringing in a maid, and a thousand dirhams monthly wages, and forcing him to hand over the plaintiff identification papers for young, except for passports and entry summary and delivered a certified copy only, and rejected requests for the rest of the plaintiff, the defendant with requiring fees and expenses, and five hundred dirhams attorneys' fees.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the first ruling was canceled in the rejection of the judgment to the plaintiff at the back of her dowry and the judiciary again obliged the husband to pay her the dowry amount of five thousand dirhams. AED per month as an expense for each of his three children.
The amendment of the judgment stipulated in clause (7) to oblige the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 500 dirhams custody wages, and amended in his judgment in clause (10) to oblige the defendant to pay the plaintiff 800 dirhams per month the value of consumption of electricity, water and the Internet.
The defendant did not accept the verdict.He challenged him before the Federal Supreme Court over his obligation to pay the back of the dowry, based on the fact that the two verdicts report that the spouse's mistake rate is 50% and that she received half of her friendship, which should have been half of her other friendship in return for her abuse.
The Federal Supreme Court rejected this appeal, noting that the two rulings decided to differentiate between the spouses without allowance and therefore the judge must rule under the two verdicts.
The defendant stated that the judgment did not take into account his financial obligations when estimating the amounts awarded for the maintenance of the children, the wage of the house and the custody fare, which was rejected by the Supreme Court, stressing that the trial court had full authority to obtain an understanding of the reality in the case.