A woman in Dubai asks for a divorce after 17 years for lack of "respect"

The Court of Cassation in Dubai has settled a legal dispute in favor of a Gulf man. His wife filed a divorce suit after 17 years of marriage and the birth of three children, out of disrespect for her and not treating her appropriately, which leads her to fear that she will not establish the limits of God. The Court of Appeal ruled after being convinced of the arguments of the husband, who affirmed his desire to continue the marriage and the impossibility of sexual relations between them. The wife appealed to the Court of Cassation, which rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal. She also rejected a petition for reconsideration submitted to her after examining the case.

The judicial dispute between the two parties began with a claim filed by the wife asking for her to divorce her and granting her custody of the children, and obligating him to enable her to the marital home and to pay electricity, water and internet fees, on the basis of saying that he does not respect her and does not support her and that she suffers more harm than her staying with him, a damage that makes it impossible for ten to last.

The plaintiff's wife presented her case to the Family Guidance Committee, but a friendly settlement was not possible between the two parties, and then the first stage of litigation began before the Personal Status Court of First Instance.

The plaintiff's legal representative submitted a memorandum requesting the annulment of the marriage contract, in exchange for forfeiting all her financial rights resulting from the marriage and the annulment, stating that she hated married life with him, and even asked her lawyer to deposit an amount of 20,000 to clear her of the marriage contract.

For his part, the husband decided that he adheres to the plaintiff and refuses to divorce her and hopes that she will return to her senses, rationality and good morals that he entrusted with her, in order not to collapse family life.

The Court of First Instance decided to dissolve the marriage by khul', in light of the plaintiff's acknowledgment that there was no room for reconciliation, and that she was harmed by the continuation of the married life between them.

For his part, the husband appealed the ruling before the Court of Appeal, claiming that he had misapplied the law, according to Article 110 of the Personal Status Law, which states that “khul’ is a contract between spouses in which they agree to terminate the marriage contract” and must be judged if they disagree with each other and one of them is afraid not to give The other has his legal rights, except that the husband is not alienated from his claiming wife and wants the marriage to continue, and he has shown his willingness before the court to provide for her and his children, and his intransigence has not been proven to make her request for khul’ to the detriment and benefit of her husband and children.

The Court of Appeal decided to annul the initial ruling, because the case was free of mutual consent between the two parties, as well as their discord, as well as the intransigence of the husband who showed adherence to his wife and children and a desire to preserve his home.

For his part, the legal representative of the wife, Lawyer Muhammad Al-Awami Al-Mansoori, appealed before the Court of Cassation, citing the Court of Appeal’s mistake in applying the law, corruption in reasoning, and wasting the right of defense because the appellant could not stand cohabitation with the husband, and redeemed herself, but he was stubborn and refused to divorce her to the detriment of her and there is no way for them to reconcile It is a legally unacceptable situation, and it is not acceptable to say that the husband refused khul’ with the intention of preserving his home, demanding separation by khul’, in return for the return of the dowry received 20 thousand dirhams and the waiver of the delay of the dowry and the maintenance of the waiting period and pleasure and any other rights.

After examining the case, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal because the husband’s intransigence had been proven, noting in its merits that his refusal to divorce despite the wife’s waiver of her rights was not with the intention of harming her or forcing her to spend more money, but with the intention of preserving his home and the continuation of married life.

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