She claimed that her husband refrained from spending on her and used to stay up outside the house

The Supreme Federal Council overturns the ruling for divorce for a wife because no harm is proven

The Federal Supreme Court ruled to revoke the judgment of a wife's divorce from her husband, because the harm was not proven, noting that “the contested judgment was issued after the effective date of the amendment of some provisions of Federal Law No. 28 of 2005 in the matter of personal status, and it has not been proven that the wife filed a previous lawsuit for divorce or dissension. She refused.

She was also unable to provide any evidence of the damages she claimed that she had sustained as a result of the appellant, with which the appealed judgment supporting the appealed judgment regarding divorce was issued in contravention of the law, requiring its revocation, as well as with regard to the requests resulting from it.

In the details, a wife filed a lawsuit in which her husband was litigated, indicating that she had given birth to her three-year-old daughter, and that he kept up the night outside the house and did not return until dawn.

He also does not spend on her or their daughter that causes harm to her.

In the lawsuit, she demanded a divorce due to harm, proof of custody of her daughter, delay of her friendship and alimony and spousal support for a period of nine months prior to the filing of the lawsuit, foster home rent, the recruitment of a maid, payment of her wages, custody wages and alimony for her daughter, delivery of her identification documents, delivery of her personal belongings, and a photo album marriage.

She also demanded a refund of the amount received from her, and the fees and expenses of their daughter's study.

On the other hand, the husband filed a lawsuit against his wife requesting that she be compelled to enter into his obedience, explaining that she is his wife, and that he provided her with a house, a fully independent villa, and the divorce case was referred to the two judgments who filed their report in which they decided to separate the spouses with a damaging shot, without an allowance, due to unknowns. The case for the abuse.

The court of first instance decided to separate the spouses according to the judgment of the two verdicts with a clear second divorce to prove the existence of a first divorce, obligating the husband to pay her 20 thousand dirhams for the delay of her friendship, and the wife's custody of her daughter, and obliging him to pay 2000 dirhams for the daughter's alimony monthly, and 36 thousand dirhams for the foster home rent annually, starting from From the date of the judicial claim, with study fees and the girl’s expenses for the rest of the current school year and the following years, by providing a maid and paying her recruitment fees and her monthly salary, and by handing over to the plaintiff the original ID card, health card, birth certificate of the foster child, and a certified copy of her passport, renewing it when necessary, and a copy of the summary Family record, and the refusal of the wife's requests.

The court ruled to reject the husband's case, and the two parties appealed the ruling, and the Court of Appeal decided to amend the convicted alimony to an amount of 1500 dirhams per month, obligating the husband to hand over his wife's photo album of their marriage, and obliging him to half the delay of the dowry in the amount of 10 thousand dirhams, and to adjust the rent for the nursery to 24 thousand dirhams annually .

The husband appealed the ruling, lamenting the error in applying the law, given that there was an amendment to some provisions of Federal Law No. 28 of 2005 regarding personal status and his decision to divorce despite the wife’s admission to leave the marital home, and the reasons for leaving or the harm inflicted on her have not been proven. The two judgments that he mentioned did not prove the alleged harm from the wife.

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the husband's appeal against the judgment, and ruled to veto it, indicating that it was issued after the date on which the amendment came into effect to the law, and that the amendment stipulated that “If the harm is not proven, the case shall be rejected, and if the discord continues between the spouses, the injured one must file a new case. The family guidance committee and the judge were unable to reconcile between them, so the judge appointed two arbiters from their families if possible.

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