The defendant is sick, married to another, and does not work

The Federal Supreme Council rejects an absolute request to increase expenditures

The Federal Supreme Council affirmed that the ruling had spent more than the previous husband's ability to spend.

Archives

The Federal Supreme Court overturned an appeal ruling that spent a divorced woman with expenditures exceeding the ability of her ex-husband, and did not take into account his circumstances and the treatment of his illness and hardship, and that he had no steady work, his inability to find work, along with the expenses of the second wife and two children, his accumulated debts and the rent of his residence.

The court considered that the verdict made a mistake in understanding the reality and estimating the evidence and expenditures, with similar deficiencies that led him to violate the provisions of Islamic Sharia and the law.

In the details, a woman filed a lawsuit seeking to oblige her ex-husband to increase the expenses and dependencies for herself and her daughter, the housing allowance, the furnishing allowance, the maid's fee, and the girl's school fees.

Her divorced woman assured that he was "sick with the disease and has no job, despite his inability to increase expenses due to the circumstances of his illness and lack of work, the expenses of the second wife and the other two children, and his housing rent."

The Court of First Instance ruled to obligate the defendant to increase the alimony from 1500 to 2000 dirhams with school fees, and the defendant's right to transfer the incubated child to a government school in the next year, in addition to what was decided by the first previous ruling.

The Court of Appeal ruled to amend and increase some of the expenses in favor of the plaintiff, and uphold the first ruling on anything else.

The defendant appealed the judgment in cassation, explaining that “the ruling contradicted the fixed papers and provisions of Islamic Sharia and the law regarding determining expenditures and their consequences, while spending expenditures beyond his financial capacity, without taking into account his income and hardship, and that he has no work and sick, and the expenses of the second wife and two sons, His accumulated debts in the bank, which was acknowledged by the plaintiff.

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, confirming that the legislation in the country took into account the income of the person obligated to spend in compliance with what was stipulated by the wise street, and taking into account the living and economic situation before the divorce, and if this situation changes between the date of the alimony due and the date of eliminating it, then what is approved is its estimation at the time of entitlement, not the time. The judiciary, with the need to observe mediation and moderation.

She emphasized that it is stipulated in the Personal Status Law that it is permissible to increase and decrease the alimony according to changing conditions, and the lawsuit of increase or decrease is not heard before the lapse of one year after imposing the alimony, except in exceptional cases, and the increase or decrease of the alimony is calculated from the date of the judicial claim, and there is no oversight of the trial court. As long as it establishes its judiciary on plausible and acceptable reasons, after being informed of the conditions of the two parties, either easy or difficult, and the economic and social situation in time and place, and all the associated circumstances.

She indicated that according to Article 15 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the family is the basis of society, and its foundation is the Islamic religion, morals and love of the homeland, and the law guarantees its existence, preserves and protects it from deviation, but it made the issue of expenditures and their estimation in accordance with Sharia, social and economic controls, and according to custom, according to custom. He assessed the capacity of the husband or father and his ability and financial ability, and if the appealed judgment and the primary ruling did not understand that by his judgment in violation of the provisions of Islamic Sharia, law and custom, and he decided to determine the expenses and their consequences without a control or a fixed standard, an increase and no balance, without taking into account the circumstances of the defendant. This is the matter that the plaintiff acknowledged and did not contest in the court of first instance, which necessitates its reversal regarding expenditures and their consequences, while addressing and emphasizing the validity and appropriateness of the assessment of the first preliminary judgment issued in 2015 in estimating expenditures and their consequences.

- The

"court" ruled the right of the defendant to transfer the child to a public school next year.

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