After he promised her to marry, a girl pays 430,000 dirhams in debt to the "runaway groom"

The Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Litigations ruled obligating a young man to pay a girl 430,000 dirhams that she had paid instead to a bank to lift the circular issued against him so that he could enter the country and marry her.

In the details, a girl of Arab nationality filed a lawsuit against a young man, demanding that he pay her 540 thousand dirhams, interest at 9%, and in reserve, to address a bank in the country to inquire whether the plaintiff transferred 430 thousand dirhams to the bank from her account to settle debts. The defendant has 110,000 owed from the rest of the settlement and obliges him to pay expenses and fees in exchange for fees.

The plaintiff indicated that the defendant had promised her to marry her, and when she spoke to him to complete the marriage, he told her that he could not enter the state because there was a circular on him from a bank because of his debt, so she made a settlement with the bank and paid 430 thousand dirhams to the bank and pledged to pay the remaining 110 thousand dirhams The defendant was banned, but when he returned to the UAE, it became clear to her that he was not serious about marriage and did not return the money to her. She submitted copies of checks and a copy of a debt settlement.

During the consideration of the case, the plaintiff attended and decided that she had agreed with the defendant that she would pay the amounts owed by him to one of the banks operating in the state, so that he could enter the state. The court may receive a statement from the bank regarding the settlement.

The plaintiff took the complementary oath based on the court’s directive, in the form: “I swear by God Almighty that the amounts delivered to the bank amounting to 430,000 dirhams through checks drawn from my account were from my own money and that I did not pay them to the bank as a donation from me to the defendant, but as a debt that the plaintiff returned to me.” He later claimed that the defendant did not return this amount or part of it to me, and that his debt is still occupied with me for the full amount of this amount. 

For its part, the court made it clear in the merits of its ruling that it is judicially determined that the burden of proving the alleged right falls on the one who adheres to it, and it is also established according to the Evidence Law that the complementary oath is only a procedure taken by the judge to investigate the truth and complete incomplete evidence when the case is devoid of evidence Al-Kamel, noting that the evidence from the receipts submitted in the lawsuit as well as the certificate received from the bank that the plaintiff paid a total of 430,000 dirhams of the amounts owed by the defendant to the bank, and the court, after finding in that a presumption of the validity of what the plaintiff alleges that it agreed with The defendant provided that it makes a settlement with the bank in favor of the defendant and pays the bank according to the settlement. After that, the defendant refunds what the plaintiff will pay, which made the court direct the complementary oath to the plaintiff who swore by her, and then prove to the court the validity of the defendant’s indebtedness to the plaintiff with this amount and his non-payment of it . 

The court pointed out that the papers were empty of evidence that the plaintiff had paid the remaining amount of 110,000 dirhams of the settlement amount, which required the rejection of her request to obligate the defendant to pay her the remaining amount of the settlement amount. and expenses.

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