He closed a joint account between them without her knowledge

A husband is required to compensate his wife with two million dirhams, the value of her 16-year salary

The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi upheld an appeals ruling requiring a husband to pay his wife two million 92 thousand and 319 dirhams, the value of her salary transferred over a period of 16 years to a joint account between them, and that he transferred it to a private account and closed it without her knowledge, and the court ruled rejecting the appeal.

In the details, a man filed a lawsuit demanding the reversal of a court ruling that obligated him to compensate his wife with two million 92 thousand and 319 dirhams, the value of what was deposited by her in a joint account between them over a period of 16 years, and that he closed the account without her knowledge.

In return, the wife filed a lawsuit to raise the amount of compensation to be proportional to the damages she had suffered.

The case papers and the report of the expert committee stated that the joint account between the two parties to the dispute with the bank, and the deposits and withdrawals that took place on the account, showed that the withdrawals made to the account for a period of 16 years amounted to four million 85 thousand and 617 dirhams, and the deposits for the same period amounted to three million And 321 thousand and 481 dirhams, and that the appellant misused the account for his benefit and deposited and withdrawn amounts and opened other accounts with the same joint account number with the same bank for projects related to it, and the account was closed without the knowledge of the respondent, and that the respondents ’dues deposited in the joint account until the date of terminating her services from her work reached Two million 92 thousand and 319 dirhams.

The judgment of the court of first instance, supported by the ruling of the Court of Appeal, obligated the appellant to pay two million 92 thousand and 319 dirhams, in addition to what the last judgment of the contested against, in terms of compensation for the loss of earnings and the use of its money and deprivation of its investment, and the appellant alone to exploit what was included in the joint account and transfer it to his own account And shut it down without her knowing.

The Court of Cassation stated that the appellant's obituary regarding a breach of the judgment of his right to defense for his failure to respond to the arguments that he stuck to not accepting the case for the previous ruling in it, and the case was not heard due to the passage of time, because the appealed ruling had a plea for that legal defense that the lawsuit had decided to reject the case in its state For not submitting documents, which is the case that changed when filing the present lawsuit, and the time limit for which it was paid was interrupted by the filing of the previous lawsuit and a new statute of limitations began, and then the two payments are unfounded.

While the wife, in the opposite lawsuit, claimed that the amount of compensation awarded is not commensurate with the damages she suffered, while the Court of Cassation made clear that all of this is nothing more than a controversy in the authority of the trial court in assessing the evidence, and it is not permissible to raise it before this court as the whole obituary is made clear. Accepted, and the court ruled not to accept the two appeals, and obligated each appellant to pay fees and expenses for his appeal, with the insurance in them confiscated.

The Court of Cassation upheld the "appeal" ruling and rejected the husband's appeal.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news