Yesterday, a misdemeanor court in Ras al-Khaimah looked into the case of a Gulf wife accused of stealing a washing machine and cooking utensils from her husband's house, following disputes that led to her leaving the house.
According to the prosecution's indictment, the suspect committed a theft crime, which is stealing property from the victim’s home, which is a washing machine and some household cooking tools.
The defendant denied before the court the accusations against her, and stated that the things in the house belong to the marital home and that they did not take them from another house, pointing out that she took the washing machine to wash the clothes of her son who took him with her to the family home, and the rest of the cooking tools do not belong to her husband and that her mother is from I brought her, showing her willingness to return the washing machine to the husband's house and the rest of the items.
The husband said that the accused, along with her brother and sister-in-law, stole the items from the house, asking the court to include the rest of the accused in the case, and the court postponed the case to the next session to pronounce the ruling.
The details of the case are returned when the Ras Al Khaimah police received a notification from the husband stating that his wife stole a washing machine, household cooking utensils, dining table and chairs from his home without his knowledge, and the police summoned the wife and took her statements and confessed in investigations to taking the washing machine and cooking tools after leaving her husband's house as a result of differences between them.
In a separate case, the court heard the statements of an African worker accused of having a co-worker (Arabic), saying to him "You are my thief" and threatening to kill him, because he did not obtain his financial dues for his work in the company.
The prosecution's indictment stated that the accused insulted the victim, threatened him with death, and the worker confessed in court to the victim's insult, and denied the charge of the death threat.
He explained that he worked for the victim's company, without receiving his financial dues, which led to his provocation and being angry, and the court decided to postpone the case to pronounce the ruling in the next session.