The court rejected the lawsuit because it was not based on a bond

A Gulf Arab father is asking for 435,000 dirhams after 11 years of marriage

A civil court in Ras al-Khaimah rejected the lawsuit of a (Gulf) man who demanded that the father of his ex-wife pay him 435,000 dirhams, which he had spent on them before the divorce, and the court ruled to reject the case, and to oblige the plaintiff to pay the expenses and fees.

In the details, a man filed a civil case against the father of his ex-wife, in which he demanded that he be obligated to pay him the money that he spent on him and his daughter during the period of their marriage until the divorce, pointing out that he gave his ex-wife money to buy her father's car, and she also sold her gold that he bought to supplement the price of the car .

He explained that he bought a vehicle for the brother of his ex-wife, and paid money for the maintenance of her father's house, just as his ex-wife used to ask for monthly sums of money for her family, during 11 years of marriage, equivalent to 396 thousand dirhams, adding in the lawsuit papers that he had no documents, nor witnesses to his requests, and that he relied on to The defendant took the oath in the event of denial.

The defendant said, during the case management session, that none of the plaintiff’s requests were valid, and that he had not obtained any money from him, and the case was referred to the civil court to look into the case.

The verdict stated that the opponent’s request to direct the decisive oath to his opponent is tantamount to his acceptance of, in advance, the judgment that will be issued based on the oath of his opponent, since the decisive oath settles the dispute.

The court clarified that the plaintiff’s requests are limited to his demand to oblige the defendant to pay 435,000 dirhams, claiming that he spent it on the defendant during the period of marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant’s daughter, pointing out that the plaintiff relies on the decisive oath, to prove his claim to occupy the defendant’s liability with financial sums. Where the court directed the defendant to the oath, and said, "He does not occupy him with any money for the plaintiff."

She added that, after the defendant took the decisive oath, as directed to him by the court, the dispute would be resolved regarding what the oath was based on in terms of the defendant’s lack of concern for the sums contained in the plaintiff’s requests, and then what the plaintiff claimed was not based on evidence. And his lawsuit is worthy of rejection, which is what the court decides to reject the lawsuit, and obligate the plaintiff to pay the expenses.

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