The facts of our lawsuit are summarized in that a wife filed a lawsuit against her husband, requesting proof of his divorce for her for the third time, after he had divorced her twice before her. his house, she will be divorced.” And that he intended to threaten her, not to instigate the divorce, and the court considered the case and decided to prove the divorce, so the husband appealed this ruling, and the Court of Appeal confirmed the ruling in the part of the divorce, and the judgment of cassation was issued to support the contested ruling.
This issue raises the issue of pending divorce on a condition, the extent of its occurrence and its reliance, and to clarify the matter, the Personal Status Law stipulates in Article 103 that: “A divorce suspended on doing or leaving something does not occur unless it is intended to divorce, and divorce does not occur by perjury of the oath of divorce. Or the forbidden unless he intended divorce.” This indicates, according to what was stated in the explanatory note to the law, that the suspended divorce of its two types does not happen with it unless if it is intended to divorce, and the two types intended are if the comment is on an attribute, and the condition on which it is suspended occurs, as if The husband says if you leave the house, you are divorced, or if the comment means an oath and urges to do or leave.
And if the condition is fulfilled before it is stipulated, then the divorce is accomplished and not suspended, and taking the non-occurrence of divorce dependent on doing something or leaving it, unless the divorced one intends that divorce is the closest to the purposes of the Sharia, which is appropriate to people’s needs, and the restriction contained in the article, which is “unless it is intended by it.” Divorce” means that if the divorced person intends to divorce in reality and implement it immediately, then he intends to go to the completed divorce.
It is established by the provisions of Articles 29, 60, 61 of the Federal Civil Transactions Law No. 5 of 1985 that ignorance of Shari’a rulings is not an excuse, and that there is no lesson in delusion, nor is there a lesson in thinking that is clearly wrong. As this was, and it was established in the papers that the husband answered the family counselor’s question when he asked him whether he intended to divorce or threaten what the appellant had mentioned against her, that he came to her father and repeated to him “If she does not return the apartment, she considers herself divorced.” His answer was to the family counselor. That he intended to divorce him, and when he asked him whether she was in the waiting period now, he replied in the affirmative, and proved the divorce of the appellant against her, the third divorce preceded by two previous shots, according to what he mentioned in his reasons that because that was, and the defendant had admitted before the court that he had divorced the plaintiff if she existed At her father’s house, a third shot was given, by telling her father, “If she rises with me today, she will be divorced.” The plaintiff heard him, and it was proven that she did not rise with him, and remained with her father.
It was also proven that the defendant had admitted to the family counselor that he intended to divorce, with which it was proven to the court that the defendant had divorced the plaintiff with a third round, preceded by the first and second reactionary shots, which the defendant returned the plaintiff to his infallibility after each of them during the waiting period, which limited Court to decide to answer the request to prove the third divorce.
A little patience, a lot of prudence, and a bit of patience will preserve the marital home and its stability, so let us adopt it.
Lawyer
The facts of our lawsuit are summarized in that a wife filed a lawsuit against her husband, requesting proof of his divorce for her for the third time, after he had divorced her twice before her. his house, she will be divorced.” And that he intended to threaten her, not to instigate the divorce, and the court considered the case and decided to prove the divorce, so the husband appealed this ruling, and the Court of Appeal confirmed the ruling in the part of the divorce, and the judgment of cassation was issued to support the contested ruling.
This issue raises the issue of pending divorce on a condition, the extent of its occurrence and its reliance, and to clarify the matter, the Personal Status Law stipulates in Article 103 that: “A divorce suspended on doing or leaving something does not occur unless it is intended to divorce, and divorce does not occur by perjury of the oath of divorce. Or the forbidden unless he intended divorce.” This indicates, according to what was stated in the explanatory note to the law, that the suspended divorce of its two types does not happen with it unless if it is intended to divorce, and the two types intended are if the comment is on an attribute, and the condition on which it is suspended occurs, as if The husband says if you leave the house, you are divorced, or if the comment means an oath and urges to do or leave.
And if the condition is fulfilled before it is stipulated, then the divorce is accomplished and not suspended, and taking the non-occurrence of divorce dependent on doing something or leaving it, unless the divorced one intends that divorce is the closest to the purposes of the Sharia, which is appropriate to people’s needs, and the restriction contained in the article, which is “unless it is intended by it.” Divorce” means that if the divorced person intends to divorce in reality and implement it immediately, then he intends to go to the completed divorce.
It is established by the provisions of Articles 29, 60, 61 of the Federal Civil Transactions Law No. 5 of 1985 that ignorance of Shari’a rulings is not an excuse, and that there is no lesson in delusion, nor is there a lesson in thinking that is clearly wrong. As this was, and it was established in the papers that the husband answered the family counselor’s question when he asked him whether he intended to divorce or threaten what the appellant had mentioned against her, that he came to her father and repeated to him “If she does not return the apartment, she considers herself divorced.” His answer was to the family counselor. That he intended to divorce him, and when he asked him whether she was in the waiting period now, he replied in the affirmative, and proved the divorce of the appellant against her, the third divorce preceded by two previous shots, according to what he mentioned in his reasons that because that was, and the defendant had admitted before the court that he had divorced the plaintiff if she existed At her father’s house, a third shot was given, by telling her father, “If she rises with me today, she will be divorced.” The plaintiff heard him, and it was proven that she did not rise with him, and remained with her father.
It was also proven that the defendant had admitted to the family counselor that he intended to divorce, with which it was proven to the court that the defendant had divorced the plaintiff with a third round, preceded by the first and second reactionary shots, which the defendant returned the plaintiff to his infallibility after each of them during the waiting period, which limited Court to decide to answer the request to prove the third divorce.
A little patience, a lot of prudence, and a bit of patience will preserve the marital home and its stability, so let us adopt it.
Lawyer
The facts of our lawsuit are summarized in that a wife filed a lawsuit against her husband, requesting proof of his divorce for her for the third time, after he had divorced her twice before her. his house, she will be divorced.” And that he intended to threaten her, not to instigate the divorce, and the court considered the case and decided to prove the divorce, so the husband appealed this ruling, and the Court of Appeal confirmed the ruling in the part of the divorce, and the judgment of cassation was issued to support the contested ruling.
This issue raises the issue of pending divorce on a condition, the extent of its occurrence and its reliance, and to clarify the matter, the Personal Status Law stipulates in Article 103 that: “A divorce suspended on doing or leaving something does not occur unless it is intended to divorce, and divorce does not occur by perjury of the oath of divorce. Or the forbidden unless he intended divorce.” This indicates, according to what was stated in the explanatory note to the law, that the suspended divorce of its two types does not happen with it unless if it is intended to divorce, and the two types intended are if the comment is on an attribute, and the condition on which it is suspended occurs, as if The husband says if you leave the house, you are divorced, or if the comment means an oath and urges to do or leave.
And if the condition is fulfilled before it is stipulated, then the divorce is accomplished and not suspended, and taking the non-occurrence of divorce dependent on doing something or leaving it, unless the divorced one intends that divorce is the closest to the purposes of the Sharia, which is appropriate to people’s needs, and the restriction contained in the article, which is “unless it is intended by it.” Divorce” means that if the divorced person intends to divorce in reality and implement it immediately, then he intends to go to the completed divorce.
It is established by the provisions of Articles 29, 60, 61 of the Federal Civil Transactions Law No. 5 of 1985 that ignorance of Shari’a rulings is not an excuse, and that there is no lesson in delusion, nor is there a lesson in thinking that is clearly wrong. As this was, and it was established in the papers that the husband answered the family counselor’s question when he asked him whether he intended to divorce or threaten what the appellant had mentioned against her, that he came to her father and repeated to him “If she does not return the apartment, she considers herself divorced.” His answer was to the family counselor. That he intended to divorce him, and when he asked him whether she was in the waiting period now, he replied in the affirmative, and proved the divorce of the appellant against her, the third divorce preceded by two previous shots, according to what he mentioned in his reasons that because that was, and the defendant had admitted before the court that he had divorced the plaintiff if she existed At her father’s house, a third shot was given, by telling her father, “If she rises with me today, she will be divorced.” The plaintiff heard him, and it was proven that she did not rise with him, and remained with her father.
It was also proven that the defendant had admitted to the family counselor that he intended to divorce, with which it was proven to the court that the defendant had divorced the plaintiff with a third round, preceded by the first and second reactionary shots, which the defendant returned the plaintiff to his infallibility after each of them during the waiting period, which limited Court to decide to answer the request to prove the third divorce.
A little patience, a lot of prudence, and a bit of patience will preserve the marital home and its stability, so let us adopt it.
Lawyer
The facts of our lawsuit are summarized in that a wife filed a lawsuit against her husband, requesting proof of his divorce for her for the third time, after he had divorced her twice before her. his house, she will be divorced.” And that he intended to threaten her, not to instigate the divorce, and the court considered the case and decided to prove the divorce, so the husband appealed this ruling, and the Court of Appeal confirmed the ruling in the part of the divorce, and the judgment of cassation was issued to support the contested ruling.
This issue raises the issue of pending divorce on a condition, the extent of its occurrence and its reliance, and to clarify the matter, the Personal Status Law stipulates in Article 103 that: “A divorce suspended on doing or leaving something does not occur unless it is intended to divorce, and divorce does not occur by perjury of the oath of divorce. Or the forbidden unless he intended divorce.” This indicates, according to what was stated in the explanatory note to the law, that the suspended divorce of its two types does not happen with it unless if it is intended to divorce, and the two types intended are if the comment is on an attribute, and the condition on which it is suspended occurs, as if The husband says if you leave the house, you are divorced, or if the comment means an oath and urges to do or leave.
And if the condition is fulfilled before it is stipulated, then the divorce is accomplished and not suspended, and taking the non-occurrence of divorce dependent on doing something or leaving it, unless the divorced one intends that divorce is the closest to the purposes of the Sharia, which is appropriate to people’s needs, and the restriction contained in the article, which is “unless it is intended by it.” Divorce” means that if the divorced person intends to divorce in reality and implement it immediately, then he intends to go to the completed divorce.
It is established by the provisions of Articles 29, 60, 61 of the Federal Civil Transactions Law No. 5 of 1985 that ignorance of Shari’a rulings is not an excuse, and that there is no lesson in delusion, nor is there a lesson in thinking that is clearly wrong. As this was, and it was established in the papers that the husband answered the family counselor’s question when he asked him whether he intended to divorce or threaten what the appellant had mentioned against her, that he came to her father and repeated to him “If she does not return the apartment, she considers herself divorced.” His answer was to the family counselor. That he intended to divorce him, and when he asked him whether she was in the waiting period now, he replied in the affirmative, and proved the divorce of the appellant against her, the third divorce preceded by two previous shots, according to what he mentioned in his reasons that because that was, and the defendant had admitted before the court that he had divorced the plaintiff if she existed At her father’s house, a third shot was given, by telling her father, “If she rises with me today, she will be divorced.” The plaintiff heard him, and it was proven that she did not rise with him, and remained with her father.
It was also proven that the defendant had admitted to the family counselor that he intended to divorce, with which it was proven to the court that the defendant had divorced the plaintiff with a third round, preceded by the first and second reactionary shots, which the defendant returned the plaintiff to his infallibility after each of them during the waiting period, which limited Court to decide to answer the request to prove the third divorce.
A little patience, a lot of prudence, and a bit of patience will preserve the marital home and its stability, so let us adopt it.
Lawyer