The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the First Instance Court, which affirmed the divorce of a Gulf couple, that they complemented the divorce of the three, and refused to reduce the amount of alimony from 5 thousand dirhams per month, as well as the wife’s appeal to increase her, and obligated them fees and expenses.

The facts of the case are summarized in the husband’s accusation of his wife “of increasing the doses of depression and anxiety medications he suffers from, so that he enters into a difficult psychological state until he becomes in a state of anger and madness, and from behind that she obtains the irrevocable divorce,” demanding “to prove the occurrence of divorce, a minor divorce, and acceptance His return to his wife and children. "

The wife had filed a lawsuit before the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance asking for proof of her complementary divorce for the three, and proof of custody of their children, as she stated that her husband had previously divorced her twice, with two separate backsets, and provided pictures of the children's birth certificates, and a copy of the marriage contract of the two parties, and the case was discussed before The court of first instance and the two parties represented each one in person, and the plaintiff confirmed her lawsuit and requests, and by presenting the case to the defendant, ratified it, adding that the third shot occurred in anger, agreeing that the current marital home is the custody home.

A court of first instance issued its verdict proving the defendant's divorce of the plaintiff divorce, in addition to requiring a large amount of three for each of the three, and obliging him with an amount of 5 thousand dirhams per month for the expense of 4 children at the age of custody, and proving the custody of the mother for them and by providing a furnished and appropriate custody home, which is the current marital home in which the plaintiff and her children reside and obligate Expenses of the lawsuit.

The parties were not satisfied with the ruling issued by the court of first instance, and the plaintiff appealed to him, and indicated in a newspaper that appealed that the appealed judgment was a mistake in applying the law and similar shortcomings, because the amount of alimony ruled is small and not commensurate with the living situation and that the appellant against him cut off the electricity to the house and She and her children were affected, and she requested to accept the appeal and amend the amount of the alimony.

The defendant filed a cross-appeal, including an explanatory note, in which he indicated that the appealed judgment was marred by deficiencies and corruption in the reasons, which prejudiced his rights, indicating that he did not divorce his wife, complementing the three, but one shot, and that he suffers from a medical condition "depression, chronic anxiety". And the low mood, "according to the medical diagnosis issued by a government hospital in Abu Dhabi, and that the lawsuit is malicious, and at the end of it he requested the annulment of the verdict confirming the complementary divorce of the three, and the proof of a final divorce, and the acceptance of his return to his wife and children.

The defendant presented a photo of a medical report issued by the government hospital, stating that he was diagnosed with severe depression, chronic anxiety characterized by low mood, anxiety with nervousness and needed periodic follow-up, and he also submitted another note through which he confirmed his previous memo, and indicated that the plaintiff is defrauding He must give him overdoses so that he can enter into a difficult psychological state and become in the rule of anger, crazy and get behind this irrevocable divorce, and that the divorce occurred in a state of intense anger that made him not feel, and he admitted that he divorced her one shot, and at the end he sought acceptance of the appeal in form and subject Repealing the ruling establishing proof of divorce complementing the three and above The consistency of a divorced minor divorce is determined, and an amount of 4 thousand dirhams is determined, a monthly expense, in view of his difficult financial circumstances, acceptance of his return to his wife and children, and obliging the appellant against the expenses.

While the court ruling indicated that the constant through the minutes of the court session of the first degree, that the appellant "husband" attended in person and answered the cases by endorsing them, and added that the third shot was in a state of anger and frenzy, but he could not provide evidence that he was in that The state of anger, which must be with a degree of intensity, that pushes a person to lose control of his feelings and emotions and reaches a state that cannot control his sayings and actions, and that the wife is the direct cause of his arrival in this situation.

The verdict pointed out that the husband’s medical report does not interrupt that he was on the date of his divorce suffering from one of the cases described in the report and that his companion was not always in evidence of working and earning, he responded to the case initially and attended and presented his appeal note himself and did not show any of the described sick conditions According to the medical report submitted by him, therefore, the appealed judgment and has decided to prove the divorce supplementing the three, based on justifiable and sufficient reasons, only the court considers that the validity of the date of attribution of the divorce is on the date of its approval before the Court of First Instance, and not from the date of its occurrence, according to what was stipulated in the Status Law Personal.

The ruling affirmed that the opposite appeal submitted by the wife to increase the amount of alimony, because the amount spent is appropriate in light of the husband’s financial conditions and condition, because of his limited salary and support for another family in addition to his obligations regarding installments, debts and payment of university expenses for his daughter.

The court decided to accept the two appeals in form, and in the original appeals subject to amending the occurrence of the divorce to be from the date of issuance of the recognition before the court of first instance, and the appellant be charged the expenses, and the subject of the appellant opposing his refusal and support the appellate ruling and the appellant's expenses.