The Dubai Court of Cassation overturned a ruling on the divorce of a Gulf woman for damages, which was decided by the courts of first instance and appeal, and she rejected her request for divorce and granted her the back of her friendship, in a ruling based on the new personal status law.
The court stated in its rationale that Federal Decree No. 8 of 2019 amending some articles of the Personal Status Law specifically related to divorce, affirmed that if the harm is not proven, the case is rejected, pointing out that the wife who obtained the divorce ruling in two previous litigation cases has no witness to the damage except her brother Therefore, she requested that two rulings be delegated, confirming her inability to prove the damage, and therefore the divorce request should be rejected.
According to the case file, the wife filed a lawsuit against her husband, requesting the verdict of divorcing her with a clear shot of the harm, and proving her custody of their son, after she had followed the path of guidance and family reform that referred the dispute to the court because the reconciliation between them was impossible.
In her lawsuit, the wife demanded that he pay a three-year marital back-up, three years after filing the lawsuit, and an amount of 100 thousand dirhams annually for a housing fee, in addition to furniture every five years, an electricity, water, and internet bill, several expenses, her friend’s back, and childhood expenses, transportation expenses, maid fees and the costs of bringing her Every two years, Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha, new car, driver and fuel, nursery fare and tuition fees.
She attributed her request to the harm to offense and other behaviors rejected by the husband, which led her to leave the marital home and reside with her family.
For his part, the husband filed a lawsuit in obedience against his wife, but his claim was rejected, on the grounds that she was harmed by the fact that her life was so bad that it was impossible to work for ten years.
The court of first instance offered reconciliation to both parties, but it did not take place, so it decided to appoint two rulings in the lawsuit because the quorum of evidence for the damage was not completed by the wife, as she only used one witness, her brother.
And after the two rulings deposited their report, the first instance court ruled in presence, to differentiate between the spouses by a clear shot without an allowance, and to compel the husband by a sum of several, the back of friendship, and the amount of a monthly alimony since the wife left the marital home three and a half years before the verdict, and to prove her custody of the son, and obligate the plaintiff He is obliged not to be subjected to it except in accordance with what the Shariah permits, and to pay a monthly alimony to the son, as well as obliging him to rent a house and pay the bills, furniture, clothing, and other expenses, which the wife demanded and supported by the court, but with amounts less than 50%.
Both parties appealed against the ruling before the Court of Appeal, and the defendant demanded its annulment, while the wife adhered to her first demands, and the court tried to reconcile them, but they refused, so they rejected their appeal and upheld the verdict.
The defense attorney for the defendant, Mohamed Al-Awami Al-Mansoori, appealed against the first-degree and appeals before the Court of Cassation, based on seven reasons, including that the ruling was marred by a mistake in applying the law and violating the established documents and corruption in reasoning and shortcomings in reasoning, stressing that the ruling ruled the wife with three expenses Years prior to filing the lawsuit, although she did not deserve her to leave the marital home by her will without justification and her refusal to return to it, and asked the court to refer the case to the investigation to prove her defection, and he also deposited a statement of her exit and entry into the state without the permission of the husband.
Al-Mansouri stated in his appeal regarding the ruling on divorce that the decision to divorce was not based on the new amendment to divorce rulings by Federal Decree No. 8 of 2019, despite the issuance of the decree before the ruling, the appeals court should not have decided to reject the divorce lawsuit after the wife was unable to prove the actual harm on her.