Juma Al Nuaimi (Abu Dhabi)
In the case of a dispute between a husband and wife, the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation decided to reject the wife’s request, the complainant, by amending the contested ruling and determining the monthly expenses of the wife’s alimony, children’s alimony, transportation allowance, housing allowance, furniture and domestic worker at a rate of 16 thousand dirhams, explaining that the wife has no right to demand an increase Those expenses by choosing a residence that exceed the estimate for them by the court, and that the papers were void of what indicated that their children were the ones who caused the damage to the furniture of the hotel apartment, pursuant to Article 183/1 thereof, as amended by Federal Decree Law No. 18 of 2018.
A complainant had filed a complaint against her husband, for his failure to pay the monthly expenses that were made through a contract concluded between them, asking him to pay the sums due according to her claim.
The court indicated that the evidence from the lawsuit’s papers and documents was that the complainant’s requests were to oblige her husband to an amount of 797,000 dirhams, representing the value of what she incurred in the costs of rental contracts, housing in a furnished apartment, damages to hotel furniture, water, electricity and communications bills, and that the judgment issued in the lawsuit obligated the husband. Paying an amount of 2,000 dirhams a month for the victim and 4,000 dirhams for the children and obligating the husband to provide a separate and furnished marital home in Abu Dhabi, and until it is provided to pay an amount of 5,000 dirhams per month for the wife and obligating him to pay the bills for the consumption of the marital home, the recruitment of a maid and her salary.
The court explained that the value of the housing and furniture allowance had been determined, and that the wife admitted the existence of an executive file of personal status and the husband was obligated to pay the monthly alimony, noting that the bills submitted by the complainant were rental contracts and housing in furnished hotel apartments, and the judgment issued by the Personal Status Court included those expenses. Including furniture. In view of the foregoing, the court ruled to reject the wife’s request, and that what the wife raises may not be raised before the court, as it is no more than a controversy in the discretionary authority of the trial court to assess the evidence and balance between them, and the control of this court recedes, in addition to the fact that the contested judgment has adhered to The authority of the judgment in the appeal that determined the value of the home alimony for the wife, which she must abide by until it is amended, if that is the case, and that what the wife has submitted of appeals in her supplementary memorandum was not included in the appeal sheet, the court turns away from it, pursuant to the text of Article 178 of the Code of Civil Procedure, then it is The entire appeal is based on reasons other than those stated in Article 173 of the same law, and the court shall order its inadmissibility.
#Obligating #husband #pay #thousand #dirhams #monthly #alimony