The Federal Supreme Court upheld a man's appeal against an appeal ruling that he divorced from his wife after his marriage to another, as the court described the report of the two rulers, on which the appeal judgment was based, as wrong and contrary to the provisions of Islamic Sharia and law, which decided to differentiate between them without support with no evidence of harm.
The court affirmed that the plaintiff’s divorce approval of the defendant’s marriage bond, while acknowledging before the two arbitrators that her husband treats her well and kindly, the appeal judgment is wrong in understanding reality, and contrary to the provisions of Islamic Sharia, which must be vetoed with regard to divorce and its consequences with confrontation.
In the details, a woman filed a lawsuit against her husband, demanding that she divorce him in order to harm his marriage to another, with the custody of her four children, and compel him to the back of the dowry and the expenses and accessories for her and the children, and to create custody housing and a servant's cost.
The prosecutor said that she was the defendant's wife, and that he had damaged her marriage to another. Her husband filed a counter-suit to drop the wife's custody and include the custody of the children.
For its part, the court offered conciliation to the spouses, so the husband agreed and the wife refused, and the court was unable to persuade her to reconcile, then two judges ruled and deposited a report in which they decided that the reconciliation was impossible due to the common mistake and the wife's insistence on divorce.
The Court of First Instance decided to differentiate between the spouses and the custody of the four children, to compel the defendant to pay back the dowry and the expenses and accessories for her and the children, and to prepare a nursery housing for the incubator and pay the cost of the maid.
The Court of Appeal ruled to amend the amount of expenditures between the two parties, with the ruling proceeding with divorce and its consequences, and the defendant was not satisfied with the ruling and appealed against it, on the basis that the ruling violated the provisions of Sharia and law, and violated the document with the papers when he decided to adopt the report of the two arbitrators, who decided to separate without a legal reason, and without proof The damage is only his legal marriage to a second woman.
The Supreme Federal Court upheld the husband’s appeal, explaining that it is decided in the Supreme Federal Court’s jurisdiction, and pursuant to the provisions of Article 117 and following of the Personal Status Law, that each of the spouses requests a divorce for the harm that cannot be sustained by ten years, and the Family Guidance Committee is responsible for the reform between the spouses, If the judge fails to offer him the peace, then if the harm is proven and the ruling on divorce is not possible, and if the harm is not proven, the case is rejected, and if the dispute between the spouses continues and the Family Guidance Committee is unable to reconcile between them, the judge appoints two rulers from their families if possible.
The two rulings shall investigate the causes of discord and make an effort to reform between them, and the effect of the two rulings shall not affect the refusal of one of the spouses to attend the arbitration session, whenever it was announced at the specified session, if there was a break between them.
The court continued that if the two rulings were unable to reform, and the abuse was on the part of the husband, and the wife is a student of separation, the two rulings decided to separate by a clear divorce without prejudice to some of the marital rights arising from marriage and divorce, and if the abuse was all on the part of the wife, they decided to separate in exchange for a suitable allowance that they could pay. The wife, and if the abuse is joint, they decide to differentiate without an allowance or an allowance commensurate with the percentage of the abuse, and if the situation is ignorant, then the abuser is not known of them, then if the husband is the student, the two rulings suggested his claim to be rejected, and if the wife is the student or both of them requesting the separation, the two decisions decided to separate without Allowance, and provides judgment The judge has their reasoned decision, including the extent of abuse of each of the spouses or one of them to the other, and the judge rules according to the ruling of the two rulings if they agree, if the judge’s eye differs from the others, or includes a ruling that favors one of the two views, and the judge must amend the ruling of the two rulings in a violation of the provisions of the law.
She added that the law preserves the family entity and protects it from delinquency, and made divorce in the last stage as a difficult and harsh solution, and if he did not understand the contested ruling to this by his divorce, and by taking the report of the two wrong rulings that violate the provisions of Sharia and the law, who decided to separate without support with no evidence of harm or perpetuation The ten known between them in its legal concept, except for the claimant’s marriage of the defendant as a reason to request a divorce, while acknowledging before the two rulings that her husband is treating her well and kindly, it would be a mistake to understand the reality and appreciation of the evidence, along with similar deficiencies in the cause, and based his judgment on insufficient reasons To carry what dragged by L Violating the provisions of Islamic Sharia and the law, which must be reversed with regard to divorce and its consequences, while addressing.
The “Federal Supreme”: the “appeal” ruling erred in understanding reality and violated the provisions of Sharia.