“The Right” acquits a man of borrowing 1.4 million dirhams from his ex-wife

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal for Family, Civil and Administrative Suits upheld a ruling from the court of first instance, which ruled to reject a woman’s lawsuit in which her ex-husband demanded the return of an amount of one million and 400 thousand dirhams. The court indicated that the decisive oath resolves the dispute regarding what it was focused on, and its content constitutes a binding argument for the judge, and the right of the person who made it in any other evidence is waived by swearing an oath.

In detail, a woman filed a lawsuit against her ex-husband, demanding that he be obligated to pay her an amount of one million and 400 thousand dirhams, with a legal interest of 9% from the date of the claim until full payment, noting that she had loaned him the amount during their marriage, and attributed the reason for the loan to his participation in building the house. He owned the property and bought the furniture. When he demanded the money after their divorce, he procrastinated and refused to return it. The court of first instance ruled to reject the lawsuit as it stands, and obligated it to pay its expenses, based on the fact that it did not provide evidence that the appellee had borrowed those amounts from it, and its claim to that was sent, so it did not provide evidence of the validity of the debt and the reason for its transfers to it, and purchasing furniture does not indicate whether it belongs to the property. Same or otherwise.

The plaintiff was not satisfied with the ruling, so she appealed it before the Court of Appeal, and demanded that the appealed ruling be annulled, and that her requests for the appealed case be decided upon, complaining about the appealed ruling that the Court of First Instance neglected the documents of her transfers, which came in a period contemporaneous with the appellant’s construction of his residence, and it was acknowledged that the transfers were for the purchase of requests. During their marriage, she adhered to a decisive oath. For its part, the court decided, before deciding on the matter, to give the appellant a decisive oath, which he swore in the form: “I swear to God Almighty that I did not borrow any sums from the appellant, my wife previously, during the marital relationship, in order to help build the house with transfers to my bank account in an amount exceeding one million dirhams. This is in contrast to the amounts I received in cash from the appellant, my wife, previously, and God is a witness of what I say.” The Court of Appeal explained in the merits of its ruling that it is permissible for each of the two parties, in any case in which the case is, to direct the decisive oath to the other party, provided that the incident upon which the oath is directed is related to the person to whom it is directed, and if it is not personal to him, it is directed to his mere knowledge of it. Pointing out that the appellant relied on the conscience of her opponent (the appellant) with the decisive oath she gave him, and it was related to his person, focused on the amount claimed and the context of the conflict, and was not in violation of public order, and which he swore in the prescribed form, in the presence of the appellant, and according to what the court arranged for its effect. By resolving the merits of the case, the focus of the appeal, the court ruled to accept the appeal in form, and in its merits to amend the appealed ruling by ruling that the appealed case be rejected, and obligated the appellant to pay expenses for both levels of litigation.