An (Arab) man filed a lawsuit against his (foreign) ex-wife, to recover 900 thousand and 933 dirhams and 43 fils that he had loaned to them during before the divorce, according to transfers, but she refused to return them unjustly, and the defendant denied before the court receiving any sums from the plaintiff as a way The loan, and that the sums of money he gave her voluntarily during their marital relationship were marital expenses, and a partial civil court in Ras Al Khaimah ruled, rejecting the case, because the plaintiff did not prove that the sums he handed over to his ex-wife were for a loan and the court considers them as marital expenses.
In detail, the report of the computational expertise delegated by the court stated that transfers were made from the plaintiff to the defendant during the marital relationship and that the defendant acknowledged them in her letter sent to the expert by e-mail, but it is about the difference between the two parties about the actual purpose of the money transfers and the absence of any agreement A document regarding the aspects of its disbursement, it is not possible to verify its nature, whether it was a loan or otherwise.
The man explained that the transfers sent to his ex-wife were for borrowing and not marital alimony, and she was approved to receive the sums, and demanded that she pay him 900,000, 933 dirhams and 40 fils, while obligating her to pay fees, expenses and attorney fees.
The reasons for the partial civil court ruling stated that the creditor must prove his right and the debtor may deny it, and that the court considers that the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant was regarding the value of the amount that was transferred, and whether it represented a debt owed by the defendant on the basis that the plaintiff had lent her the amount Thus, it is required to return it, or to include it within the usual expenses between spouses and not be of the nature of debt.
She explained that what was established in the papers was that the two parties had a marital relationship that lasted four years, and it was found that the plaintiff transferred sums of money to the defendant at different periods and that the purpose of transferring part of the amount according to what was established in the statement submitted by the plaintiff himself, was the purchase, rental, villa furnishings, and another amount. For the purpose of buying a dog, in addition to its expenses, while the rest of the transfers did not guarantee their purpose, and that the origin of things, custom and law is that the husband is required to spend on his wife and that those expenses that pertain to the requirements of married life vary in value according to the material level of the two parties.
The court added that it considers that these amounts are considered as marital expenses, and that proof otherwise is carried out on the plaintiff, who did not prove in his lawsuit that he had handed over the amounts to the defendant as a loan, in addition to the fact that it was proven that part of the sums were spent on buying, renting and furnishing a villa in accordance with the fixed from The arithmetic experience report, and that these amounts were transferred throughout the continuation of the marital relationship and not in one payment.
She stated that as long as the plaintiff did not prove to the court that these transfers were made on the basis that they were a loan and debt owed by the defendant, the lawsuit lacked evidence, and the court considered rejecting the lawsuit, and kept its expenses on the person responsible for it, and obligated him to pay the defendant 100 dirhams in return for attorney fees.
An (Arab) man filed a lawsuit against his (foreign) ex-wife, to recover 900 thousand and 933 dirhams and 43 fils that he had loaned to them during before the divorce, according to transfers, but she refused to return them unjustly, and the defendant denied before the court receiving any sums from the plaintiff as a way The loan, and that the sums of money he gave her voluntarily during their marital relationship were marital expenses, and a partial civil court in Ras Al Khaimah ruled, rejecting the case, because the plaintiff did not prove that the sums he handed over to his ex-wife were for a loan and the court considers them as marital expenses.
In detail, the report of the computational expertise delegated by the court stated that transfers were made from the plaintiff to the defendant during the marital relationship and that the defendant acknowledged them in her letter sent to the expert by e-mail, but it is about the difference between the two parties about the actual purpose of the money transfers and the absence of any agreement A document regarding the aspects of its disbursement, it is not possible to verify its nature, whether it was a loan or otherwise.
The man explained that the transfers sent to his ex-wife were for borrowing and not marital alimony, and she was approved to receive the sums, and demanded that she pay him 900,000, 933 dirhams and 40 fils, while obligating her to pay fees, expenses and attorney fees.
The reasons for the partial civil court ruling stated that the creditor must prove his right and the debtor may deny it, and that the court considers that the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant was regarding the value of the amount that was transferred, and whether it represented a debt owed by the defendant on the basis that the plaintiff had lent her the amount Thus, it is required to return it, or to include it within the usual expenses between spouses and not be of the nature of debt.
She explained that what was established in the papers was that the two parties had a marital relationship that lasted four years, and it was found that the plaintiff transferred sums of money to the defendant at different periods and that the purpose of transferring part of the amount according to what was established in the statement submitted by the plaintiff himself, was the purchase, rental, villa furnishings, and another amount. For the purpose of buying a dog, in addition to its expenses, while the rest of the transfers did not guarantee their purpose, and that the origin of things, custom and law is that the husband is required to spend on his wife and that those expenses that pertain to the requirements of married life vary in value according to the material level of the two parties.
The court added that it considers that these amounts are considered as marital expenses, and that proof otherwise is carried out on the plaintiff, who did not prove in his lawsuit that he had handed over the amounts to the defendant as a loan, in addition to the fact that it was proven that part of the sums were spent on buying, renting and furnishing a villa in accordance with the fixed from The arithmetic experience report, and that these amounts were transferred throughout the continuation of the marital relationship and not in one payment.
She stated that as long as the plaintiff did not prove to the court that these transfers were made on the basis that they were a loan and debt owed by the defendant, the lawsuit lacked evidence, and the court considered rejecting the lawsuit, and kept its expenses on the person responsible for it, and obligated him to pay the defendant 100 dirhams in return for attorney fees.
An (Arab) man filed a lawsuit against his (foreign) ex-wife, to recover 900 thousand and 933 dirhams and 43 fils that he had loaned to them during before the divorce, according to transfers, but she refused to return them unjustly, and the defendant denied before the court receiving any sums from the plaintiff as a way The loan, and that the sums of money he gave her voluntarily during their marital relationship were marital expenses, and a partial civil court in Ras Al Khaimah ruled, rejecting the case, because the plaintiff did not prove that the sums he handed over to his ex-wife were for a loan and the court considers them as marital expenses.
In detail, the report of the computational expertise delegated by the court stated that transfers were made from the plaintiff to the defendant during the marital relationship and that the defendant acknowledged them in her letter sent to the expert by e-mail, but it is about the difference between the two parties about the actual purpose of the money transfers and the absence of any agreement A document regarding the aspects of its disbursement, it is not possible to verify its nature, whether it was a loan or otherwise.
The man explained that the transfers sent to his ex-wife were for borrowing and not marital alimony, and she was approved to receive the sums, and demanded that she pay him 900,000, 933 dirhams and 40 fils, while obligating her to pay fees, expenses and attorney fees.
The reasons for the partial civil court ruling stated that the creditor must prove his right and the debtor may deny it, and that the court considers that the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant was regarding the value of the amount that was transferred, and whether it represented a debt owed by the defendant on the basis that the plaintiff had lent her the amount Thus, it is required to return it, or to include it within the usual expenses between spouses and not be of the nature of debt.
She explained that what was established in the papers was that the two parties had a marital relationship that lasted four years, and it was found that the plaintiff transferred sums of money to the defendant at different periods and that the purpose of transferring part of the amount according to what was established in the statement submitted by the plaintiff himself, was the purchase, rental, villa furnishings, and another amount. For the purpose of buying a dog, in addition to its expenses, while the rest of the transfers did not guarantee their purpose, and that the origin of things, custom and law is that the husband is required to spend on his wife and that those expenses that pertain to the requirements of married life vary in value according to the material level of the two parties.
The court added that it considers that these amounts are considered as marital expenses, and that proof otherwise is carried out on the plaintiff, who did not prove in his lawsuit that he had handed over the amounts to the defendant as a loan, in addition to the fact that it was proven that part of the sums were spent on buying, renting and furnishing a villa in accordance with the fixed from The arithmetic experience report, and that these amounts were transferred throughout the continuation of the marital relationship and not in one payment.
She stated that as long as the plaintiff did not prove to the court that these transfers were made on the basis that they were a loan and debt owed by the defendant, the lawsuit lacked evidence, and the court considered rejecting the lawsuit, and kept its expenses on the person responsible for it, and obligated him to pay the defendant 100 dirhams in return for attorney fees.
An (Arab) man filed a lawsuit against his (foreign) ex-wife, to recover 900 thousand and 933 dirhams and 43 fils that he had loaned to them during before the divorce, according to transfers, but she refused to return them unjustly, and the defendant denied before the court receiving any sums from the plaintiff as a way The loan, and that the sums of money he gave her voluntarily during their marital relationship were marital expenses, and a partial civil court in Ras Al Khaimah ruled, rejecting the case, because the plaintiff did not prove that the sums he handed over to his ex-wife were for a loan and the court considers them as marital expenses.
In detail, the report of the computational expertise delegated by the court stated that transfers were made from the plaintiff to the defendant during the marital relationship and that the defendant acknowledged them in her letter sent to the expert by e-mail, but it is about the difference between the two parties about the actual purpose of the money transfers and the absence of any agreement A document regarding the aspects of its disbursement, it is not possible to verify its nature, whether it was a loan or otherwise.
The man explained that the transfers sent to his ex-wife were for borrowing and not marital alimony, and she was approved to receive the sums, and demanded that she pay him 900,000, 933 dirhams and 40 fils, while obligating her to pay fees, expenses and attorney fees.
The reasons for the partial civil court ruling stated that the creditor must prove his right and the debtor may deny it, and that the court considers that the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant was regarding the value of the amount that was transferred, and whether it represented a debt owed by the defendant on the basis that the plaintiff had lent her the amount Thus, it is required to return it, or to include it within the usual expenses between spouses and not be of the nature of debt.
She explained that what was established in the papers was that the two parties had a marital relationship that lasted four years, and it was found that the plaintiff transferred sums of money to the defendant at different periods and that the purpose of transferring part of the amount according to what was established in the statement submitted by the plaintiff himself, was the purchase, rental, villa furnishings, and another amount. For the purpose of buying a dog, in addition to its expenses, while the rest of the transfers did not guarantee their purpose, and that the origin of things, custom and law is that the husband is required to spend on his wife and that those expenses that pertain to the requirements of married life vary in value according to the material level of the two parties.
The court added that it considers that these amounts are considered as marital expenses, and that proof otherwise is carried out on the plaintiff, who did not prove in his lawsuit that he had handed over the amounts to the defendant as a loan, in addition to the fact that it was proven that part of the sums were spent on buying, renting and furnishing a villa in accordance with the fixed from The arithmetic experience report, and that these amounts were transferred throughout the continuation of the marital relationship and not in one payment.
She stated that as long as the plaintiff did not prove to the court that these transfers were made on the basis that they were a loan and debt owed by the defendant, the lawsuit lacked evidence, and the court considered rejecting the lawsuit, and kept its expenses on the person responsible for it, and obligated him to pay the defendant 100 dirhams in return for attorney fees.