The court dismissed the case

A woman demands 800,000 dirhams from her husband for renting a hotel apartment and villa

The Abu Dhabi Family Court and Civil and Administrative Claims rejected a woman’s lawsuit against her husband, requesting that the defendant be obligated to the amount of 797,910 dirhams, the value of what she incurred in terms of rent contracts for villas, housing in a hotel apartment, damages to hotel furniture, water, electricity and communications bills.

The court indicated that the defendant is obligated to pay the monthly maintenance at a rate of 16,000 dirhams, which includes housing.

In the details, a woman filed a lawsuit against her husband, in which she demanded that he pay her an amount of 797,910 dirhams, and oblige him to pay legal interest at 12% from the date of filing the lawsuit until the completion of payment and to include the judgment with expedited enforcement without bail, with his obligation to pay fees and expenses, noting that She is the defendant's wife and has four children with her. A judgment was issued against him to fine him 5,000 dirhams and oblige him to pay temporary compensation in the amount of 21,000 dirhams in her favour, for failing to provide a marital home and his refusal, despite receiving an amount of 14,666 dirhams as housing allowance as fixed by his salary certificate and refraining from paying the rental value. As a result of the defendant’s failure to provide housing, with a sum of more than 379,000 dirhams.

While the defendant submitted a reply memorandum in which he ended up rejecting the case because the housing allowance was considered by the Personal Status Court and a judgment was passed in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of 16 thousand dirhams, including 5,000 dirhams as a housing allowance.

During the consideration of the case, the plaintiff’s agent attended and submitted a memorandum detailing the amounts owed to the plaintiff, which included a rental contract for a one-bedroom suite in a hotel in the amount of 186 thousand 410 dirhams, the value of rent, and communication bills made at the hotel worth 5,947 dirhams, 23 thousand and 795 dirhams damages to furniture in the hotel, and a rental contract A villa within the city of Abu Dhabi, for a period of two years “2019 and 2020” at an amount of 340,000 dirhams, the costs of furnishing the villa in the amount of 200,282 dirhams, and electricity and communications bills in the amount of 41,476, bringing the total amounts to a total of 797,910 dirhams.

During the court's interrogation of the two parties, the plaintiff stated that a judgment had been issued for his alimony in addition to a housing allowance until the provision of housing, and an executive file had been opened and that the defendant was obligated to pay the alimony and housing allowance set forth by the court, at a total amount of 16 thousand dirhams per month, including the alimony and housing allowance estimated by the court, and decided Her claim was based on three lease contracts and that she lived in a hotel apartment, and that due to the damage to the apartment’s furniture, as well as bills for water, electricity, communications and furniture, all for a total amount of 797,910 dirhams.

While the defendant decided that he is currently building a house and that the house is about to be completed by the end of this year, the amount is exaggerated and that the court indicated that the personal status department provided the allowance and that he is obligated to pay it and that his salary does not reach the amount demanded by the plaintiff, deciding that his work He does not provide housing and that the housing allowance includes his salary, and the plaintiff also receives a housing allowance from her work.

The plaintiff responded that she does not receive a housing allowance from her workplace, noting that 5,000 dirhams does not cover the housing, and that her husband did not provide her with a home, and that, from marriage to date, she was the one who provided housing, as the defendant said that it was not possible to provide housing, which forced her to rent a home until Her children are not liable to remain without a home, and the two parties requested that the case be reserved for judgment.

For its part, the court clarified in the merits of its ruling that the Personal Status Court had determined the value of the housing and furniture allowance and included it among the expenses.

The plaintiff appeared before the court, and decided that the defendant was obligated to pay the monthly maintenance at a rate of 16,000 dirhams, noting that the bills submitted by the plaintiff were rental contracts and housing in furnished hotel apartments, and the judgments issued by the Personal Status Court included those expenses, including furniture. The plaintiff has the right to demand an increase in these expenses through her choice of housing or hotel apartments in excess of what is estimated for her by the court, and in the event that she chooses a place or rents housing more than what is estimated for her, she bears the consequences of her payment, for not choosing what is appropriate for her estimated expense. .

The court indicated that it does not go along with the plaintiff regarding her request for the value of the damages to the furniture in the hotel and communications, as the plaintiff is responsible for these damages, since the furniture is entrusted to the resident in the hotel apartments, and it was not proven in the papers that the sons of the parties to the lawsuit were the ones who caused those damages and this applies to Communications bills, and the defendant denied the total amounts demanded by the plaintiff, and indicated that he is currently building a residence, and that the house is about to be completed, pointing out that the plaintiff did not prove that the plaintiff was responsible for her residence, whether in hotel apartments or even in the rental contract or that he promised her to pay Its value and its statements were sent in this regard, especially in light of the existence of judicial rulings that clarified the obligations of the defendant, and the latter was obligated to pay them according to the statement of the plaintiff, which makes this lawsuit lose its basis from law and reality, and the court ruled to reject the lawsuit with obligating the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.

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