A father that suits 3 children to compel them to pay 15 thousand dirhams a monthly expense for his “divorcee”

A federal court in Fujairah rejected a lawsuit filed by a father demanding that his three children be paid to pay a monthly expense, amounting to 15 thousand dirhams, as of the date of filing the lawsuit until the need for the need for this alimony, while obliging him to fees, expenses and law fees.

According to the case papers, a father filed a judicial invitation against three of his sons, in which he explained that he was going through financial hardship, after he became committed to a series of expenses after the divorce of his two wives, as he must pay the expense of his two divorces, the expense of his minors from one of the two wives, in addition to renting an housing for one of the two divorced women, and paying the arrears The livelihood of his elderly mother, as well as bank loans and checks due to him, which made him unable to cover his monthly obligations, he said.

He added in the case newspaper that his three children are working in jobs and they receive fixed salaries, and they have no high or great financial burdens, and therefore they must help him pay his obligations.

In his case, the father attached a portfolio of documents, which included an agreement issued by the family guidance committee obligating him to pay a expense of 3000 dirhams per month for his minors, and another agreement obligated to pay 12 thousand dirhams per month and 60 thousand dirhams annually, the value of a housing rent for his sons, in addition to a debt certificate of a value exceeding one million dirhams from one of the banks, and copying checks with a value of rent Annual for my divorced residences.

During the trial sessions, the court asked the prosecutor about his monthly income, and he stated that his salary exceeds 40 thousand dirhams, explaining that he is obligated to pay about 10 thousand dirhams for his two divisions, 5,000 dirhams instead of renting a house, and a similar amount for renting another apartment, in addition to bearing the expenses of his elderly mother.

On the other hand, representatives of the children provided official documents stating that their clear monthly salaries ranged between 15 and 16 thousand dirhams only, noting that they are at the beginning of their working life, and that their salaries are barely sufficient to cover their basic needs, without a surplus that can be allocated to spend on their father.

While the court confirmed in its merits that after reviewing the case papers, it was established that the plaintiff (a father of the defendants), and that he is still at the head of his work, and receives a monthly salary exceeding 40 thousand dirhams, which he acknowledged before the court himself.

The court relied on a book issued by a bank that proves that the plaintiff had previously obtained a personal loan that is still owed by an amount exceeding one million dirhams, and she saw that this debt does not indicate a real insolvency that prevents him from spending on himself, but rather reflects his financial obligations resulting from his choices and behaviors.

The court suggested that the prosecutor is rich in his gain and his money that exceeds the income of his children together, noting that his monthly obligations from expense and rents are personal burdens that the children cannot bear law legally, and that the salaries of children do not rise to the level of ease that require them to be obligated to the expense of their father, but rather sufficient them, especially since they are in the youth stage, self -formation and future building.

The court stressed the prescribed Sharia rule that “every person has his expense in his money except the wife, so she expelled her in the money of her husband.” She saw that the plaintiff’s request is not based on a valid support of the law, and she indicated that in relation to fees and judicial expenses, the losing party is the one who bore it based on Articles 133 and 135 of the Civil Procedure Law.

Accordingly, the court ruled in attendance to reject the lawsuit, and obligated the plaintiff to fees and expenses and for the fees of law, stressing that his documents did not prove his insolvency in a manner that justifies the obligation of his children to spend on him.

• The court realized that the documents provided by the plaintiff are not proven tasked in a way that justifies his children to spend on him.