A Gulf man buys a car for his wife and commits 50,000 dirhams of traffic violations

A (Gulf) bought a car for his (Gulf) wife and committed traffic violations worth 50,000 dirhams, which made her sue him before the courts of Ras Al Khaimah because of the damage caused by the accumulation of violations on her traffic code. The plaintiff's ownership according to the Traffic and Patrols Department.

In detail, a Gulf woman filed a lawsuit before a partial civil court in Ras Al Khaimah, in which she stated that her husband had bought a car in her name and committed traffic violations worth 50,000 dirhams, and demanded that he pay the violations, but he evaded and refused to pay.

And the lawsuit papers indicated that the woman decided that the defendant was her husband while buying the car in her name, and the divorce took place between them later, and that he used the car registered in her name for two months and committed traffic violations of 50 thousand dirhams with it and promised to pay the violations, but he did not implement what was agreed upon and the car is still He has it.

The witness confirmed that the defendant was using the plaintiff's car and that he had bought it in her name and they used it together, and that the plaintiff had told him that she had committed one car violation and that the rest of the violations were committed by the defendant after a dispute occurred between the two parties.

And it was stated in the partial civil court ruling that the plaintiff’s request to transfer ownership of the car in the name of the defendant was based on an incorrect basis of fact and law, because the papers were devoid of evidence that the plaintiff sold the car to the defendant.

She explained that, regarding her request to oblige the defendant to pay the traffic violations on the car, the violations were according to the statement of the Traffic Department and it was received on her car, following up that in order to prove that the defendant committed these violations, the court referred the case for investigation.

She pointed out that the plaintiff brought one witness (her brother), who testified that she and the defendant were using the car together, and that she had committed one violation, which cast many shadows of doubt about the perpetrator of all the car violations, and accordingly the court ruled that the case be dismissed.

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