The court obligated him to return 58 thousand dirhams

A man takes advantage of his wife's travel and seizes her savings

Al-Ain Court of First Instance obligated a man to pay his ex-wife 58,614 dirhams, which she withdrew from her bank account while she was outside the country.

In the details, a woman filed a lawsuit against her ex-husband, demanding that he pay her 51,000 dirhams, the value of the sums he withdrew from her account, and return her gold coins worth 60,000 dirhams, noting that she was the wife of the defendant, and it was agreed between them to To travel with their children to Britain and then join them.

She explained that she was working as an employee in one of the state hospitals, and her services were terminated by the employer, and she was handed over her labor dues, and she deposited the amount in her account, and the total amount in her account amounted to 51 thousand dirhams, and she handed the defendant her bank card, to withdraw the amount based on the power of attorney granted to him While the marriage was established, the amount was sent to her in Britain, and the defendant withdrew the amount, and closed the account without sending her the amount.

She indicated that when she traveled, the marital relationship still existed between her and the defendant, so she left her coin with him, which is estimated at 60,000 dirhams, and the defendant refused to return it, handed it over to his mother, and provided a document for her claim, a copy of a conversation through the social networking program (WhatsApp). father), a copy of the gold coin, a copy of the power of attorney, a copy of the account statement, and a copy of the khul’ ruling.

The court decided to assign one of the accounting experts, and the expert concluded in his report that the total amounts deposited in the plaintiff’s account is 58,614 dirhams, indicating that, according to the statement of the customer service officer of the bank, the person making the withdrawal and depositing from the bank account mentioned above is the defendant, and he is the one who made Close the account.

The expert’s report indicated that the defendant stated that the gold works were in his possession, and submitted invoices for their purchase, noting that the gold that the plaintiff was demanding is less than the gold that was billed by the defendant, who claims his ownership of it, and the report left the matter regarding the estimation of that to the court.

The plaintiff’s attorney submitted a memorandum that included amending his requests in the lawsuit to oblige the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 58,614 dirhams, and oblige him to return her gold jewelry, worth 60,000 dirhams, while the husband’s defense submitted a memorandum containing objections to what the expert’s report concluded, because he had By depositing an amount of 32,980 dirhams into the plaintiff’s account, and that the amount belonged to him and he withdrew it, in addition to the existence of a debt resulting from the plaintiff’s savings account that the defendant paid, and he also paid the rent stalked by the plaintiff, and attached copies of checks he received from the lessor after settling the accounts.

During the judge’s interrogation, the plaintiff confirmed that the amounts in the account represented the end of her service, and sums she had saved during her work period, noting that she did not sign the checks, and was not linked to any rental relationship while she was in the state, while the first defendant took the decisive oath in the part related to with gold, and he swore that the gold that the plaintiff was claiming was not her gold, and that it belonged to him, and he had never given it to her.

In the ruling’s merits, the court confirmed that it was satisfied with what was stated in the expert’s report, noting that it was established that each party held its ownership of the gold, and the plaintiff appealed to the defendant’s conscience, and directed him the decisive oath to prove its ownership of the gold, and the defendant swore the decisive oath, and denied its ownership of the gold, and the court ruled to oblige The defendant must pay the plaintiff an amount of 58,614 dirhams, obligating him to pay fees and expenses appropriate to this amount, and she rejected other requests.

• The husband submitted to the court the invoices for the purchase of goldsmiths, and took the decisive oath.

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