Abu Dhabi Primary School rejected its application due to lack of evidence

A woman asks her husband to return 60,000 dirhams of debt

The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance rejected the case of a wife who had disputed her husband and demanded that he be compelled to pay the amount of 60,000 dirhams she had granted to him as an advance and debt, and her response was delayed. the husband.

The details of the case refer to the wife's filing a civil lawsuit against her husband, in which she demanded that he be obligated to pay 60,000 dirhams with the legal interest at 12% from the date of filing the case until full payment, with obliging him to pay fees, expenses and attorney fees, indicating that she handed him the amount and promised to return it, except He was stalling, so she was forced to file a case against him, and she provided a scanned copy of the bank statement stating that she had withdrawn the money.

While the husband attended and submitted a memorandum requesting rejection of the case for lack of validity and proof with a photo folder that included a photocopy of his account statement, indicating that he had transferred 30 thousand dirhams on the same date for the benefit of his wife's account, the wife's lawyer requested a time-frame for comment, and the husband denied receiving any sums from the wife .

The wife's lawyer presented an explanatory memorandum, demanded that the husband be obligated to the amount of the claim, and as a precaution, directing the complementary oath to the wife, and provided a photocopy of a cash withdrawal receipt, showing the plaintiff’s withdrawal of 60,000 dirhams from her account.

For its part, the court affirmed in the merits of the judgment that it is established by jurisprudence and the judgment that the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff is legally mandated to prove his claim, and to provide evidence that confirms what he claims therein, and that the trial court is not obligated to assign the opponent to provide evidence for his defense or to draw His consideration of the requirements of this defense.

The court indicated that the withdrawal of money by the wife is not primarily evidence of the husband’s indebtedness, as the plaintiff was not proven by evidence of the husband’s receipt of the claim’s amount, and the plaintiff was charged with proving her claim and establishing evidence for what she claims. The court also rejected the wife’s request to direct the complementary oath for lack of Evidence supporting her claim, and the court ruled to dismiss the case, and obligated the plaintiff to pay the fees and attorney fees.

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