A Gulf man demands 500,000 dirhams from his ex-wife in compensation for “massive lawsuits”

The Abu Dhabi Family Court and Civil and Administrative Claims rejected a lawsuit brought by a (Gulf) man against his ex-wife, in which he demanded 500,000 dirhams in compensation for the material and moral damages he sustained as a result of what he described as the “malicious lawsuits” she filed against him.

In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against his ex-wife, requesting that she be obligated to pay 500,000 dirhams in compensation for the material and moral damages he suffered, and the legal interest at 5% from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment and obligating her to pay fees and expenses, explaining that the defendant was his wife and filed malicious lawsuits before the status courts. Personality without legal justification and the abuse of the right guaranteed by law, which caused him as a result of these malicious lawsuits material and moral damages, represented in demeaning him in front of his acquaintances, in addition to the time and money that cost him “lawyer’s fees” to defend his reputation and prove his innocence.

In support of his claim, he submitted photocopies of the judgments of innocence in the lawsuit filed by the defendant, a certificate of second revocable divorce, and copies of bank transfers, while the defendant submitted a reply memorandum in which she argued that the case was not accepted due to the expiry of the decision issued by the Conciliation and Reconciliation Committee for the passage of six months, and a petition to reject the case for non-acceptance of the case. Health and reliability.

The court stated in the merits of the ruling that what is established from the case papers is that the defendant used her legitimate right guaranteed to her by the law as stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Transactions Law, as she had entered the gates of the judiciary in order to uphold and defend a right she claims for herself and she believed in this and this is not explained by bad Intention.

The court indicated that the case papers were devoid of evidence of the defendant’s bad faith or the slander in the litigation, and then the error was negated from the papers and the elements of tort responsibility had come empty in its pillar of one of its pillars, which is the error, and as long as that was within the limits of its use of a legitimate right The law allowed it, and the case papers were free of the intent to harm the plaintiff, especially the rejection of the personal status case;

It does not indicate that the defendant lied, and it was not proven to this court that, in using this right, she intended to offend the plaintiff, and the court ruled to reject the case and obligated the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.

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