Overturned a court ruling of first instance obligating her to return to the marital home

“Dubai Appeal” orders the divorce of a woman for stabbing her husband in her honor

picture

The Dubai Court of Appeal decided to divorce an Arab woman from her husband for harm, overturning a ruling issued by a court of first instance that obligated the wife to return to the marital home with their daughter who is in her custody, given the couple’s non-Islamic religion and their affiliation to two different sects.

The court considered that one of the images of the damage suffered by the wife was that the husband engaged in her presentation and challenged her morals with recorded messages to her father, and that he even sent a recorded message to their 13-year-old daughter in which he slandered her mother with an abusive description, claiming that she was in a relationship with another man, despite his continuing To live with her after that alleged relationship ended.

In detail, lawyer Muhammad al-Najjar said in the defense memorandum that all the causes of divorce for harm were met in the case of the wife, starting with bad marriage, non-spending, accusations of treason, threats by word and deed, blackmail and lying, all of which are proven reasons.

He added that the appellant did not pay any expenses to his daughter, whom he demanded to return to him, and that he lives in the marital home that he owns equally with the wife, and she is the one who pays his installments, and pays the installments of the car he owns, being his guarantor.

He pointed out that he plunged their daughter into their marital disputes, and even went to the point of abusing her mother in front of her and through text messages to blackmail his wife, who ran away with her daughter and rented a house, in addition to the fact that he changed the keys to the marital home that she owned equally with him, so that she could not enter it.

He explained that he abused his wife in her honor, and accused her of having an affair with another man, and even wrote to one of her colleagues asking her to stay away from his wife, which caused her embarrassment at her work, and he was not satisfied with that, but sent text messages to her father, challenging her offer, without evidence.

Al-Najjar stated to the Court of Appeal that the appellant claimed before the Court of First Instance that his income does not exceed 6000 dirhams per month, in order to evade any financial obligations, knowing that he possesses a commercial license and an annual lease contract of 72,000 dirhams.

He pointed out that the husband had repeatedly tried to blackmail his wife into granting her a divorce in return for paying him large sums of money and not asking him for any expenses for the daughter, which indicates the falsehood of his allegations regarding her relationship with another.

The court of the first instance ruled in favor of the husband in relation to the divorce application, and ordered the wife to return to the marital home, in return for his commitment to the legally established alimony, and obligating her to enable him to see his daughter and talk to her by phone.

The Court of Appeal ruled to overturn the previous ruling and to divorce her with a prima facie case, and refused a ruling to oblige her to obey him.

The lawsuit papers revealed that the wife requested the application of the Greek Orthodox Personal Status Law, which allows her to divorce in light of the severe harm she suffered and accusation of adultery, and blackmail by her husband, who told her that he would insist on applying the law of the Maronite doctrine, which makes divorce difficult and takes years He asked her for money in exchange for facilitating divorce proceedings.

The wife explained that she works in a prestigious job and receives a decent salary, and enrolls her daughter in the best schools, while her husband is not educated and does not support them, but rather relies on her for all his expenses.

The husband appealed before the Court of Appeal against the ruling of the Court of First Instance, arguing that the foreign law to which he belongs was not applied, but the court did not turn to his appeal, because he did not submit a copy of the law required to be submitted to the Court of First Instance, so he has no right to fortify it before the Court of Appeal.

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