Khaberni - A man has filed a lawsuit in a federal court in the UAE, demanding the reduction of the expenses set for his ex-wife and their son, removal of some of his financial obligations, as well as requesting the recovery of 90,000 dirhams, which he said he paid his ex-wife "Zahba" in excess of the due dowry, according to the law of setting dowries, while affirming his financial pressure after marrying another woman, and bearing new family obligations and bank debts.
The court rejected the request to reduce the custody fee, and the request for the recovery of 90,000 dirhams valued as "Zahba," which he did not provide proof of payment.
The lawsuit papers clarified that the man had married the defendant in a legitimate contract, and was blessed with a child from her, then they divorced through Khul', and later rulings were issued to organize the child's custody, alimony, housing allowance, and visitation, and ended up obligating the father to pay a monthly alimony of 3,000 dirhams including all expenses such as housing, paying the water, electricity, internet, and gas bills, and a furniture allowance of 8,000 dirhams—rulings which were confirmed by the Court of Appeals and Cassation, and became final.
The claimant mentioned in his lawsuit document that he is insolvent, married to another woman, and has children from her, and his obligations have increased.
He also noted that his ex-wife had received a government housing grant, which in his opinion, eliminates her need for a housing allowance for custody.
He requested the court to reduce the custody fee from 500 to 300 dirhams monthly, to drop the alimony of the two festivals set for the custodian, and to reduce the child's alimony from 3000 to 1000 dirhams covering all aspects, with eliminating the custody housing fee, and obligating his ex-wife to return the amount of 90,000 dirhams value of "Zahba" which he claimed was paid to her in excess of what was due.
In retaliation, the mother attended and submitted a reply and a memorandum that included a counterclaim, then she withdrew from this counterclaim and was content with requesting to maintain the previously adjudicated expenses, confirming that she still bears the responsibility of taking care of the custodian, and that the imposed expenses match the actual needs.
She admitted in the sessions that she benefited from a government apartment, but clarified that the costs of living and raising the child are still high.
The court reviewed the father's salary certificate, which showed a monthly income not considered low, and considered that the claim of his insolvency was not based on sufficient evidence, especially since the bank debts did not convincingly show the reasons for their expenditure, and that his signing a rental contract for a new residence exceeding 60,000 dirhams annually, along with his second marriage, reflected an existing financial capability that does not justify the dropping or reduction of the requested expenses.
Based on these data, the court rejected his request to reduce the custody fee and to drop the alimony of the two festivals, considering that the amounts set in previous rulings are still suitable for his income and circumstances.
As for his request to recover the amount of 90,000 dirhams valued as "Zahba," it was based on the amount representing a part of the dowry "exceeding the due" according to the law of setting dowries, but the court referred to Article (45) of the Personal Status Law, which states that the dowry is money for the wife, and purely her own, and she cannot be compelled to dispose of it, and any condition contravening this is not recognized.
The papers confirmed that the custodian received 20,000 dirhams in advance as dowry, and waived 30,000 dirhams of it in the Khul’ lawsuit, and she denied receiving the amount of 90,000 dirhams "Zahba," placing the burden of proof on the husband, who did not provide evidence of paying this amount, and the court considered the request to recover "Zahba" merely a claim without basis.
It concluded by dropping the custody housing fee as of the date of the judicial claim, reducing the son's alimony to 2,000 dirhams monthly, covering all aspects of the legitimate alimony, except housing, and rejected the rest of the requests.
