The “appeal” upheld his obligation to pay

He denied receiving the amount.. A woman borrows 605,000 dirhams for her husband

The “court” decided to direct the complementary oath to the plaintiff, so she took her oath.

archival

A man asked his wife to borrow sums of money from banks amounting to 605,000 dirhams, and promised to pay them, but he did not fulfill his promise, and she was forced to pay the installments, which resulted in a dispute between them.

The Court of First Instance ruled to obligate the husband to pay his wife 440,000 dirhams, the value of the installments she had paid since obtaining the loans, and the Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims confirmed the ruling.

In the details, a woman filed a lawsuit against her husband asking him to oblige him to pay her 605,000 dirhams, and the defendant submitted a reply memorandum requesting the rejection of the lawsuit.

During the consideration of the case, the court decided to direct the complementary oath to the plaintiff, who took her oath, and decided to return the case to pleading, for the plaintiff to submit bank documents to show the amounts she had paid from the loan granted to her, with an indication of whether she had withdrawn the value of the loan or not.

The Court of First Instance decided to obligate the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 440,000 dirhams, and obligated the defendant to pay fees, expenses, and fees. The bank to provide the court with a copy of the credit facility account statement for the credit card of the respondent (the original claimant), and to obligate the respondent to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorneys’ fees for the two levels of litigation.

The appellant (the original defendant) argued that the appealed ruling was not informed of the reality of the dispute, corruption in the inference, and a violation of the evidence in the papers. The judgment deed in that complementary oath swore by the respondent, while the respondent obtained this loan and purchased an apartment and paid an amount of 417,000 dirhams after receiving the loan, according to a receipt issued by a real estate company.

While the respondent submitted a final memorandum in which she resolved to reject the appeal and instruct the appellant to submit his account statement to show that the appellant deposited the amount of her loan, which he received in cash from her and transferred it on the same day to the account of a real estate company to pay the installment of his villa.

For its part, the Court of Appeal clarified in the merits of its ruling that the Court of First Instance was subject to adjudication in the present litigation regarding obligating the appellant to the value of what the appellant had paid of the loan she obtained in his favour, on the basis that the defendant (the appellant) did not deny the validity of his sending an acknowledgment to the plaintiff’s father, and his defense was limited to that This settlement is not related to the amounts claimed in this case, and therefore the supervisory judge saw that it is a presumption of the validity of what the plaintiff (the appellant) alleges of her agreement with the defendant (the appellant) to take loans in his favour, to pay it to her later, and he directed the complementary oath her, and then the court of first instance proved the validity of what she claims in this regard.

The court indicated that the appellant did not come up with a new defense before this court that changed the opinion in the case, and the reasons for his appeal that the indebtedness to him according to the family agreement declaration sent to the appellant is not affected by the amount of 16 thousand dirhams, and his denial that the loan obtained from The respondent was in his favour, or that he received it from her.

Divorce Application

The Court of Appeal clarified that it is evident from the appeal papers and documents submitted, especially the report of the two judges submitted in the personal status lawsuit that was filed between them regarding the request for divorce of the appellee from the appellant, which stated that one of the reasons for the appellant’s request for divorce was that the appellant requested that she borrow the amount of the claim in his favour. The appellant responded to this request with the two judgments stating that this amount was a contribution from her to participate in a profitable project, but she asked him to return this amount at the end of the project due to differences, which is what the court concludes that the appellant may have obtained On the value of this loan, he did not return it to the respondent, and the court decided to accept the appeal in form and on the merits, confirming the appealed judgment for its reasons, and obligated the appellant to pay the costs of the case.

• “First degree” obligated the defendant to pay the plaintiff 440,000 dirhams, but he did not accept the ruling.

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