Abu Dhabi Court rejected the request for compensation

A woman is obligated to return 7 cars, including a Rolls-Royce and a Porsche, to her ex-husband

Abu Dhabi Court heard the statements of witnesses before issuing the verdict.

archival

The Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims obligated a woman to return seven cars to her ex-husband.

The details of the case go back to a man filing a lawsuit against his ex-wife, asking her to compel her to return seven cars, and to pay him three million and 339 thousand and 350 dirhams in compensation for the damages he sustained, explaining that the defendant was his wife and he had four children from her.

The man indicated that he owns seven cars in the former marital home, and that the defendant had previously filed a personal status lawsuit and a ruling was issued obligating the plaintiff to provide two cars for her. He was justified, pointing out that he was damaged because he was denied the use of cars.

While the defendant submitted a memorandum that included a counterclaim, in which she indicated that the judgment issued in the personal status lawsuit obligated her ex-husband to provide two cars and bear their expenses, and that the plaintiff gave up the cars in question for his children, and that she paid most of the installments of a Rolls-Royce car, and also paid a large part of the installments A Mercedes car from her own money and handed over to the plaintiff in cash, and that he paid a small part of the installments as a gift, and registered the two cars in his name, and that she did not get a payment receipt from him, because he was her husband.

She indicated that she does not use these cars for her personal interest, but rather they are intended for the benefit of the plaintiff's children who are in her custody.

And she demanded the judiciary to reject the original lawsuit, prove her ownership of the Rolls-Rice car, and prove that her ex-husband donated other cars to serve his children.

The court stated in the reasons for the ruling that what is proven in the papers is that all seven vehicles are registered in the name of the plaintiff, and the court heard witnesses whose statements came that the defendant was using that vehicle, and that it was in charge of renewing and maintaining licenses, and the testimony did not indicate that the defendant was the one who purchased the vehicle. And the plaintiff has six other vehicles located in the marital villa, and the defendant also used them, and this does not affect what the Personal Status Court decided to provide two vehicles for the benefit of his children, as he chooses the appropriate vehicles for his children.

The court pointed out that the plaintiff’s statements crosswise that the defendant gave her the vehicle, her statements came without proof, and the vehicle was still registered in the name of her ex-husband, and she had the burden of proving the gift or donation or even paying the amount, which makes the request based on an incorrect deed. , and the court ruled obligating the defendant to return the seven vehicles to the plaintiff, and rejected the other requests, while obligating the defendant to pay the fees and expenses of the original lawsuit, and rejecting the corresponding lawsuit with obligating the plaintiff to pay the expenses.

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