The wife asked for divorce, alimony and compulsory compensation

A dispute between two brides over the wedding party leads them to court

A dispute occurred between two newlyweds, and instead of going to the wedding, they went to the court yard, where the wife applied for divorce, after her husband refused to hold the ceremony under the pretext of economy in expenses, demanding alimony and compensation for the damage, while the husband denied her claim, confirming that he did not alone.

After the Court of Appeal ruled in the interest of the wife to divorce and obligate the husband to spend, the Federal Supreme Court decided to overturn the ruling on a bond that there is no evidence of harm to the wife.

In detail, a bride filed a personal status lawsuit against her husband, in which she said that she is the wife of the defendant according to an official contract, and that he had a valid seclusion with her and did not enter her, and that was in her family's home, and because he was unable to prepare the marital home, her mother offered to provide them with a new villa to start married life, except He wanted to rent an apartment to live in, she said.

She stated that her husband refused to hold the wedding under the pretext of saving the expenses, despite the fact that she incurred large expenses to prepare to complete the marriage of clothes, accessories and tools, which exceeded 200 thousand dirhams, in addition to that he did not provide her with any monthly expenses since the marriage contract until the date of the lawsuit, and he also prevented her from traveling with Her mother for treatment did not hurt her morally and psychologically, so she asks for her divorce from him, ratification of the late dowry, and giving her spousal alimony from the date of the contract, along with compensation for the damage, represented by her incurring the expenses of the engagement party, tools, clothes and equipment that she incurred.

For his part, the husband acknowledged the marital status and its history, and that he did not enter it, denying the rest of her words altogether, and denouncing her position on him even though he clings to it and still wants to complete the marital relationship.

The defendant filed a counterclaim, in which he requested the completion of the marriage procedures and the plaintiff’s empowerment for him, denying her claim that he had a valid seclusion with her, and that he believed her the dowry was 100 thousand dirhams, gave her several jewels and gifts, and provided her with two marital housing, according to the agreement between them, and asked her to live In a rental dwelling until the house is built, however, she and her family suggested that he renovate and finish the house of her mother's house, and live in it until the house is finished.

He also denied her claim that any damages had occurred to her, and denied her request for alimony for not surrendering herself to him as a wife, and then asked that her claim be rejected.

The plaintiff amended her lawsuit by adding that the costs of her marriage preparations are estimated at 200,000 dirhams, and because of the plaintiff’s unwillingness to complete the marriage ceremony, and due to the material, psychological and moral damages she suffered, she filed the lawsuit due to the impossibility of the marriage between them in favor, in accordance with the provisions of Article 117/1 of Personal Status Law is required to eliminate it with all its legitimate rights.

The court of first instance decided to divorce the plaintiff with a permanent shot before entering (Baynunah Saghri). At the end of the dowry is 30 thousand dirhams, and obligating the plaintiff to return 80 thousand dirhams, which consists of increasing the amount paid to the dowry to the defendant, and rejecting the other requests of the parties in the two lawsuits, and each party bears the fees, expenses and attorney fees for his lawsuit, and the Court of Appeal approved it.

The defendant did not consent to this ruling, so he appealed it, explaining that the ruling was a mistake in applying the law by not applying the immediate effect of Decree-Law No. (8) of 2019 amending Federal Law No. 28 of 2005 regarding personal status, as a clear and explicit amendment was issued in the text of Article 118. 1 / of the law, which stipulates that “if the harm is not proven, the case shall be rejected,” indicating that the appeal ruling in support of the first instance ruling decided that the plaintiff had failed to prove the damage, and he was obliged to reject the case in accordance with the law, but it did not apply In this direction.

For its part, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, explaining that the evidence from viewing the papers has not proven the damage, which is required, in application of the aforementioned text, to rule to reject the lawsuit filed by the contested plaintiff.

And she concluded that the judgment of appeal supporting the primary ruling did not comply with this consideration of the decision to divorce the plaintiff in contravention of the aforementioned, as his judiciary would have violated the correct law, which necessitates its revocation.

The husband denied that the bride was separated, and expressed his desire to complete the marriage procedures.

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