After 17 days of marriage, a woman requests divorce due to harm, and the husband requests annulment of the contract

A short marital trip, which did not last more than 17 days, turned into a legal dispute before the Abu Dhabi Family Court, which included allegations from both sides, after a dispute broke out between the spouses, which ended with the wife requesting “divorce for harm,” and the husband requesting “annulment of the marriage contract for deception,” alleging that she concealed health issues that prevented the continuation of the relationship between them.

According to the lawsuit papers, the relationship began normally, and both parties were bound by a documented marriage, but things took a sudden turn, after they traveled to the country where their families reside, where the husband left his wife at her family’s home, informed them of his unwillingness to continue the marital relationship with her, and returned to the Emirates alone.

The wife said that her husband had deluded her that they would return together to the Emirates, but she was surprised when he returned alone and left her outside the country without arranging for her return or enabling her to recover her belongings. She confirmed that she had left the marital home with him without taking her jewelry or personal belongings.

The legal advisor, Nour Al-Saqqa Amini, stated that the incident caused the wife psychological trauma, and she attached a medical report stating that she suffered a nervous breakdown after he left her in this way, especially since her attempts to communicate with him did not lead to a solution, before she received information stating that he did not want to continue the marital relationship.

Al-Saqqa Amini added that as a result, the wife resorted to the judiciary, demanding a divorce due to harm, and the return of her personal belongings, which include jewelry, gold jewelry, and other items worth 50 thousand dirhams, confirming that she left them in the house before he left for the last time. She also demanded spousal support, housing support, deferred dowry, and the rest of her rights.

On the other hand, the husband presented a different account of the dispute, as he denied the facts attributed to him related to abandoning or harming his wife, and maintained that the differences between the two parties did not rise to the level of harm that would permit divorce.

For his part, he requested an annulment of the marriage contract, citing reasons that he said were related to the instability of the relationship from the beginning and the impossibility of its continuation, which led him – according to his defenses – to request a legal end to the relationship instead of continuing their dispute.

He also requested that the wife be presented to a medical committee, as part of his effort to prove some points related to the health condition on which he relied in his defence, considering that this may affect the characterization of the dispute before the court.

He argued that the wife was not entitled to some financial demands, most notably the deferred dowry and the expenses resulting from the divorce, based on his legal position on the nature of the relationship and his request for annulment of the marriage instead of divorce.

During the hearing of the case, the court of first instance ruled to oblige the husband to pay monthly maintenance amounting to 1,500 dirhams, while rejecting the rest of the requests, which prompted her to appeal the ruling.

Before the Court of Appeal, the case underwent a comprehensive review, including the papers and documents submitted by both parties.

The court took into account the nature of the husband’s work and his level of income in estimating the value of marital alimony, and ended up amending the ruling, raising its value to 3,000 dirhams per month.

It also obligated him to enable the wife to receive all of her personal belongings from the marital home, including the gold jewelry, the existence of which he acknowledged, as being her established right.

The court rejected the request for divorce due to harm, due to insufficient evidence to prove it, which is consistent with legal standards that require proof of harm in a clear and specific way. It also rejected the husband’s request to annul the marriage contract because the wife does not suffer from diseases that would allow that, indicating that it is not interested in referring her to a medical committee so as not to become a party to the dispute.

• The Family Court awarded the wife monthly alimony and the return of her belongings from the marital home.