Dubai Cassation Court Upholds The Authority Of Court Of First Instance And Court Of Appeal In Interpreting Evidence In Family Matters

Case Summary: The plaintiff filed this case against the defendant who is her ex-husband, seeking an increase in the maintenance amounts that he provides for his children who are in the plaintiff’s custody. She also alleged that the defendant had failed to repay some loans that was borrowed from her. The parties were divorced three years earlier, and as they had agreed that the plaintiff will be the custodian of their two daughters, the defendant paid custody charges, child support and other expenses to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that since that agreement, her daughters have grown older and the cost of living has increased, and the defendant now has a higher income, due to which she required a raise in the maintenance provided by the defendant. The plaintiff submitted a list of documents to the court, to support her claim.

However, the defendant claimed that he had been sending the maintenance amount to the plaintiff who was residing outside the country until now, but she had recently moved to the UAE out of spite after she learned that the defendant was getting married. She has now begun living in his only residence and has refused to vacate it, even after the defendant provided her with a separate residence in Sharjah. The defendant had filed a separate case against the plaintiff where he requested that the plaintiff be charged to move to the residence in Sharjah. He also requested the court to charge the plaintiff to send the children to the school in which he had enrolled the children and paid their tuition fee.

First Instance Court (“CFI”) findings: The court decided to join both the cases filed by the parties. As neither party had insisted in the application of foreign laws, the UAE local laws were applied to the case. Regarding the defendant’s request to vacate the current residence and move to the residence provided by him in Sharjah, the court stated that as per article 148 of the Federal decree Law no. 28/2005 regarding personal status, preparing a suitable custodial residence for a child without a source of income, and paying the related bills, is an obligation that falls on the father according to Sharia law, taking into account the financial situation of the father, unless the custodian owns a residence. The defendant was able to prove to the court that the plaintiff already owned a residence in Dubai, which fact was not denied by the plaintiff. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff is not entitled to a custodial residence. However, as the defendant had prepared a separate residence for the plaintiff and the children in Sharjah, the court charged the plaintiff to move to the Sharjah residence with her children. The court also stated that the defendant, being the guardian of the children, has the right to choose the type of education for both his daughters, as per article 148 of the personal status law. Accordingly, the plaintiff was charged to transfer the children to the school chosen by the defendant. The court also ruled that as the plaintiff had failed to obtain the defendant’s permission in enrolling the children to a school in Dubai, the defendant will not be liable to reimburse the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in this regard. He will only be required to pay the tuition of the school in Sharjah, while the plaintiff bears all the expenses related to the Dubai school, until the children are transferred.

Regarding the plaintiff’s request to increase child support and custody charges, the court observed that according to article 63 of the personal status law, maintenance is determined by the financial status of the provider and the economic condition of the receiver. Article 64 states that the maintenance amount may be increased or decreased according to any change in conditions. Furthermore, the Cassation Court has established that agreements related to maintenance and child support are temporary and subject to modifications when required. The court also observed that the determination of quantum of such maintenance amount are matters of fact that are subject to the discretionary authority of the court.

After taking into consideration the present child support and custody charges paid by the defendant and the defendant’s difficult financial status, wherein he was under massive debts, with his car being seized, the court ruled to not increase the amount paid by the defendant. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s request for separate residence and furnishing allowances and allowances towards transportation. However, the court charged the defendant to pay for Eid clothes for the children biannually, and for the hiring of a domestic help, as these expenses fall under the maintenance expense obligatory on the father. The court also charged the defendant to renew the residency of the children and provide them with health insurance.

The request for health insurance and renewal of residency for the plaintiff was rejected by the court as the marital relationship between the parties had ended and the defendant was under no obligation to provide for the plaintiff. Similar reasoning was provided by the court when rejecting the plaintiff’s request to charge the defendant with medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff for her medical treatment. Requests for travel tickets were also rejected by the court.

Regarding the plaintiff’s claims that the defendant had borrowed money from her, the court ruled that as the money was not used for investment purposes or buying a property, the borrowed money is to be treated as a civil matter and was outside the jurisdiction of the family court. The court also stated that the plaintiff’s request for damages was also outside the purview of the family court. Article 282 of the civil transaction laws governed acts of harm and damages, and the plaintiff was directed to approach a competent civil court.

The plaintiff’s claim that the defendant should be made liable to return her jewelry was rejected by the court for lack of appropriate evidence.

Court of Appeal findings: Both parties appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance.

Upon the plaintiff’s request, the court cancelled the requirement for the plaintiff to relocate to the residence chosen by the defendant and instead mandated the defendant to pay an annual rent for a custody residence. Furthermore, the defendant was directed to provide a one-time furnishing allowance and cover utility bills. The Court also ruled in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the school fees, ordering the defendant to assume responsibility for the forthcoming academic year's fees. The court also ordered to increase child support, starting from the date of the initial legal claim.

In response to the plaintiff's challenge regarding the jurisdiction of the Personal Status Court over specific financial claims, the court referred these matters back to the Court of First Instance for further consideration.

Upon returning the case to the Court of First Instance, the plaintiff amended her request to charge the defendant with the payment of an amount of 600,000 dirhams, plus 5% annual interest from the due date, which was the date of the last payment made to him by cheque, until the full amount is paid. Additionally, she requested the defendant to cover fees, expenses, and attorney fees. After reviewing the case, the court ruled in the presence of both parties to charge the defendant with paying the plaintiff 520,000 dirhams, as well as covering the charges and expenses.

This ruling from the Court of First Instance was again appealed by both parties before the Court of Appeal. The appeal court stated that the it will adjudicate the matter based on the true facts of the case and it is not bound to answer every plea and defense raised by the parties separately, as long as the evidence that refutes such pleas or defenses is implied in the grounds of the judgment. Consequently, the court ruled that as the grounds in the case were the same as presented before the Court of First Instance and the appealed ruling had covered all the factual and legal aspects of the case in detail, the court upholds the lower court’s decision and dismisses the appeal filed by the parties.

Court of Cassation findings: The order of the appeal court charging the defendant to repay the loan amount was challenged by him before the Court of cassation. The defendant contended that the court had based its ruling on a transfer of money made by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant stated that this amount was not used to purchase any property, as claimed by the plaintiff, but a part of the amount was used to pay rent on an apartment used by the plaintiff’s family. The court rejected this contention stating that the transfer of money to the defendant was established before the court but the defendant had failed to show the repayment of the money. During a court session, the defendant had admitted to receiving money from the plaintiff and purchasing an apartment with the money, wholly in his name, without registering the corresponding share in the property to the plaintiff. The court had ruled to charge the plaintiff for the repayment of this particular amount. The court of cassation concluded that this decision was justified and established by the documents without violation of the Law, rendering the defendant’s appeal groundless. The cassation was thus duly dismissed.

In Conclusion, the Court of Cassation upheld the trial court's decision and dismissed the defendant’s appeal due to insufficient evidence. The judgement also affirmed the trial court's authority to identify facts, evaluate evidence, and interpret documents. It was evident that the court's rulings had to be based on sufficient evidence found within the case documents. As long as the evidence supported its conclusions, the court was not obligated to address every plea and defences separately. This emphasized the importance of ensuring that the evidence presented was substantial and supported the court's decision-making process. Consequently, the defendant was directed to fulfil financial obligations to the plaintiff.

Cassation Appeal No. 4 of 2023, Personal Status Appeal

Originally published October 09, 2025

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.