The Court of Cassation in Dubai resolved a judicial dispute in the interest of a Gulf man. His wife filed a divorce suit, after 17 years of marriage and the birth of three children, out of disrespect for her and not treating her properly, which leads her to fear that she will not establish the limits of God, and she obtained a ruling in her favor from the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeal annulled the ruling, after being convinced of the husband’s defenses, who confirmed his desire to continue the marriage, and that it was not impossible for them to marry. .
The judicial dispute between the two parties began with a claim brought by the wife, asking for her to divorce her, to grant her custody of the children, and to obligate him to enable her to the marital home, and to pay electricity, water and Internet fees, on the basis of the statement that he does not respect her, does not spend on her, and that she is more harmed than her staying on his responsibility, harmful It is impossible for him to last ten.
The plaintiff’s wife presented her case to the Family Guidance Committee, but a friendly settlement was not possible between the two parties, and then the first stage of litigation began before the Personal Status Court of First Instance.
The legal representative of the plaintiff submitted a memorandum requesting the annulment of the marriage contract, in exchange for dropping all her financial rights resulting from the marriage and the annulment, stating that she hated married life with him, and even asked her lawyer to deposit an amount of 20,000 to clear her of the marriage contract.
For his part, the husband decided that he adheres to the plaintiff, refuses to divorce her, and hopes that she will return to her senses, rationality and good morals that he entrusted with her, in order not to collapse family life.
The Court of First Instance ruled for the annulment of the marriage by khul’, in light of the plaintiff’s acknowledgment that there was no room for reconciliation, and that she was harmed by the continuation of the married life between them.
For his part, the husband appealed the verdict before the Court of Appeal, blaming him for the error in applying the law, according to Article 110 of the Personal Status Law, which states that “khul’ is a contract between spouses in which they agree to terminate the marriage contract,” and must be judged if they disagree with each other. One of them was afraid that he would not give the other his legal rights, except that the husband is not alienated from his claiming wife, and wants the marriage to continue, and he showed his willingness before the court to spend on her and his children, and he did not prove his intransigence, which makes her request for divorce harmful to her husband and children, and no benefit in it.
The Court of Appeal decided to cancel the initial ruling, as the case was free of mutual consent between the two parties, as well as their discord, as well as the intransigence of the husband, who showed adherence to his wife and children, and a desire to preserve his home.
For his part, the legal representative of the wife, Lawyer Muhammad Al-Awami Al-Mansoori, appealed before the Court of Cassation, citing the error of the Court of Appeal in applying the law, corruption of reasoning, and wasting the right of defense, because the appellant could not stand cohabitation with the husband, and redeemed herself, but he was intransigent, and refused to divorce her to the detriment of her. There is no way for them to reconcile, and it is a situation that is rejected by Sharia, and it is not accepted to say that the husband’s refusal to divorce with the intention of preserving his home, demanding separation by divorce, in return for the return of the dowry received, which is 20 thousand dirhams, and the waiver of the delay of the dowry, and the maintenance and pleasure, and any other rights.
After examining the case, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, because the husband’s intransigence had not been proven, noting in its merits that his refusal to divorce, despite the wife’s waiver of her rights, was not intended to harm her, or to force her to spend more money, but rather with the intention of preserving his home. and the continuation of married life.