She supported the abolition of holiday allowances and the start of schools from the maintenance of the foster children

“Cassation”: It is not permissible to reconsider the value of alimony before one year has passed

Court of Cassation: Appellant did not prove that the condition of the Respondent has changed for the better.

Photography: Eric Arazas

The Court of Cassation confirmed, in the merits of a recent ruling, in which it upheld an appeal ruling that decided to reduce the alimony for foster children, cancel the holiday allowance, and the starting school allowance, that “it is not permissible to reconsider the case for increasing or decreasing the alimony for the fostered children before one year has passed since the issuance of the ruling determining alimony.”

The father had filed a lawsuit against the grandmother of his children on the mother’s side, requesting a ruling to reduce the alimony imposed on him for his children, to 700 dirhams for each of them, and to cancel the holiday allowance, the allowance for the beginning of the school year, and the transportation allowance.

He said that the grandmother of his children is the custodian for them, and imposed on him an alimony of 2,000 dirhams per month for each child, 1,500 dirhams for holidays and the beginning of the school year each year, a transportation fee of 500 dirhams per month, and a maid’s wage of 750 dirhams, adding that he is unable to pay all these obligations. Because he does not have a job, as he works in a shop, and he has no other income.

The Court of First Instance ruled to reject the case, while the Court of Appeal ruled to cancel the ruling, and to rule again by canceling the decision for the appellant on the occasion of Eid Al-Fitr and Al-Adha, and at the start of schools, and settling for an amount of 1,200 dirhams alimony for each of his four children per month, and 500 dirhams as a transportation allowance, so the incubator submitted an appeal. judgment before the Court of Cassation.

The appellant complained about the ruling, the error in applying the law, the corruption in the inference, the lack of understanding of the reality in the case, the breach of the right of defense, and the violation of what is established in the papers, stressing that “the father’s financial conditions did not change between the date of the rejection of his previous lawsuit, in which he demanded a reduction of alimony, and between The date of filing the current lawsuit, as he repeated in his current lawsuit what he said in his lawsuit that was rejected, and he did not bring anything new in the current lawsuit.

She indicated that his financial situation predicts capacity and solvency, and that he was not affected in the recent period, which makes the contested ruling inconsistent with the pretext of the previous rulings by rejecting the alimony reduction claim.

The Court of Cassation rejected this appeal, and said in the reasons for its ruling that the judiciary to increase the alimony is based on the fact that the rulings in determining its amount are of temporary authority, because they are subject to change and alteration, and are subject to increases and decreases, as well as to the forfeiture due to the change of its motives, and this is supported by the text of Article 64 of The Personal Status Law, which stipulates that alimony may be increased or decreased according to the change of circumstances, and the claim for an increase or decrease is not heard before the lapse of one year since the imposition of alimony, except in exceptional cases.

The increase or decrease in alimony is calculated from the date of the judicial claim.

Since it is proven in the case papers that alimony for the children was imposed according to a preliminary ruling issued more than a year ago, the current case is heard since a year has passed since its imposition.

It is also clear from the papers that the two commercial licenses owned by the plaintiff have expired, and the appellant did not prove that the condition of the respondent has changed for the better.

He is also a student, and he has four other children and a wife, which makes what the appealed ruling went to regarding reducing expenses in accordance with the law.

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