The court rejected the case after taking the decisive oath

A man demands his wife return the 37,000 dirhams he deposited in her account

The court obligated the husband to pay the case.

Archives

The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance ruled to reject the lawsuit of a husband who asked his wife to return 37,000 dirhams that had previously been deposited in her bank account, in order to complete the conditions and requirements for obtaining an entry visa for a foreign country, while the wife confirmed that the amount is part of her dues with the husband.

In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against his wife demanding that she be obligated to return the amount of 37 thousand dirhams, in addition to the interest 12% from the date of the lawsuit, indicating that the amount was deposited in the defendant's bank account after her undertaking to return it back to his account after completing the procedures for obtaining a visit visa To one of the foreign countries, but it did not obtain the visit visa and refused to return the amount to him again, and presented in the lawsuit a copy of their marriage contract and a copy of the deposit bond.

When the lawsuit was circulated, the plaintiff's husband attended and decided that he transferred the amount to the defendant as a matter of debt, and demanded that the decisive oath be given to the defendant, while the wife confirmed that she is still in custody of the plaintiff, and that she did not receive the money as an advance or debt, but rather took it as part of the sums in The plaintiff was responsible for her benefit, as he had previously borrowed money from her and obtained gold coins of her own to sell them as a result of going through financial hardship.

The wife took the decisive oath before the court that she did not ask her husband to deposit the amount subject of the lawsuit in her account in order to be able to finish the procedures for obtaining a travel visa, and that the amount was deposited in her account in exchange for money and gold items that he borrowed from her.

For its part, the court clarified in the merits of the ruling that the plaintiff relied in proving his claim to direct the decisive oath to the wife, and relied on the defendant’s conscience in what his claim and claim were addressed, and the court decided to direct the decisive oath to the defendant and swore her, which is required by the judiciary to reject the case, and the court ruled rejecting the case And obligating the plaintiff to pay the expenses.

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