An Arab asks to prevent his ex-wife from traveling before returning his money

The Ras Al Khaimah Civil Appeals Court rejected a lawsuit filed by an (Arab) man against his (Asian) ex-wife to prevent her from traveling before she paid 144,635 dirhams, which she had taken from him as a loan, due to the lack of conditions required by the legislator to issue a travel ban order.

In detail, a man filed a lawsuit in which he asked to prevent his ex-wife from traveling until she pays the amount she owes, pointing out that the defendant was his wife and the relationship between them ended in divorce and she received sums of money from him during the marital relationship on the basis of a loan and she refused to pay it.

He explained that he feared her escape, especially since she works for an airline, and asked to prevent her from traveling until she pays the amount she owes.

The judgment was not accepted by the plaintiff, so he lodged his appeal and again requested the judiciary to prevent the defendant from traveling until she pays the amount she owes, on the basis of saying that the appealed judgment erred in the application of Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Code.

In the rationale for the judgment of the Court of Appeal, it was stated that the appealed judgment was correct and consistent with the provisions of the law, as it is established that freedom of movement is one of the basic rights guaranteed and protected by the constitution for the individual, and that the result of this is that it is not permissible to infringe upon it except for a necessity that is dictated by a social interest or a fundamental interest that is manifested by what Its necessity is justified, provided that there are serious reasons for the debtor’s fear of fleeing the country, based on specific facts, actions, or manifestations that justify this fear and make the debtor’s flight likely.

She explained that the lawsuit papers and documents came devoid of any serious reasons for fear that the defendant would flee, and that filing the lawsuit is not evidence of her attempt to escape and does not undermine the nature of her work in an airline, as it does not indicate a fear of escaping, as well as the lack of conditions required by the legislator. To issue a travel ban order, and then all the reasons for the appeal were unsubstantiated and worthy of rejection and upholding the appealed judgment.

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