A girl sells her gold to help a “fake groom”

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Claims Court obliged a young man to return 190,000 dirhams to a girl who had transferred it to him, after he had deluded her that he needed help so that he could marry her, and she reported that she had sold her gold to provide the disputed amount.

In detail, a girl filed a lawsuit against a young man and a girl, in which she demanded that the young man be obligated to pay her 408 thousand dirhams that he took from her without any right or legal basis, and that he be obligated to pay 100 thousand dirhams in compensation for the moral and moral damages she suffered, while obliging the defendants to pay fees and expenses and in exchange for attorney’s fees, and as a precaution to give an oath to complete it.

The plaintiff indicated that the defendant deluded her into believing that he wanted to marry her, and that he was poor, so she sold some of her gold to help him, and also paid the bills he owed on his behalf, pointing out that she gave him the money and did not return it to her.

The plaintiff confirmed the defendant’s conviction pursuant to a criminal ruling, and attached as a basis for her claim photographs of conversations on a social networking site, invoices for the sold gold jewelry, a report of police evidence, and a copy of the criminal ruling.

The defendants submitted a responsive memorandum requesting that the lawsuit be dismissed.

The second defendant requested that the lawsuit against her not be accepted, because it was filed against someone without legal capacity.

For its part, the court explained that what is established in the papers is that the plaintiff did not indicate the status of the second defendant in the lawsuit, and did not address any specific requests to her. The papers also contained nothing indicating the existence of a causal relationship between the facts in dispute and the defendant, which negates one of the conditions for accepting the lawsuit against her, and the defense raised by it becomes based on a valid basis of fact and law.

In the merits of its ruling, the court indicated that what is established in the criminal ruling is to punish the accused, the “first defendant,” for what he committed by fining him 200,000 dirhams, obliging him to pay the civil plaintiff temporary civil compensation of 51,000 dirhams, and obliging him to pay the expenses of the civil lawsuit, pointing out that the error under which he was convicted is the same error on which the plaintiff based her filing of the lawsuit. If the criminal ruling ruled for conviction on the basis of proven error, it would have made a necessary decision regarding the occurrence of the act that constitutes the common basis between the criminal and civil lawsuits and the legal description of this act and its attribution to its perpetrator.

Regarding the plaintiff’s request to return the seized amount, the court explained that what is established in the criminal ruling is that the first defendant was convicted and that error was proven on his part. The ruling stated that the plaintiff transferred an amount of 190 thousand dirhams to the defendant, while she did not provide proof of the sale of gold or the payment of other cash amounts. It was also not proven that the amounts of the calls were paid from numbers belonging to the defendant, and therefore the court limits its ruling to the amount fixed by it in the papers, and rejects other claims for lack of evidence.

It ruled not to accept the lawsuit against the second defendant, and to oblige the first defendant to pay the plaintiff 190,000 dirhams, obligating him to pay an amount of 4,000 dirhams in comprehensive compensation to complement the previously awarded compensation of 51,000 dirhams, obliging him to pay fees, expenses, and attorney’s fees, and rejecting all other requests.