Verbal Assault Against The Spouse, Their Parent, Or Their Family Will Be Considered Sufficient Harm To Grant A Fault-Based Divorce

Summary: Case The husband requests a fault-based divorce from his wife on the grounds of cruelty and abuse and seeks the custody of his son aged 15 and daughter aged 24. The husband states that the continuation of their marriage has become impossible due to continuous marital discord. He claims that his wife, who is very wealthy and influential, owning multiple properties across the world, abuses and humiliates him and even exhibits violent and aggressive behavior. She has also expelled him from their marital bedroom and even their marital house, forcing him to stay in a hotel. The husband claims that on two different occasions, his wife’s behavior necessitated the arrival of the police. Due to their continuous disputes, their daughter intervened and made them sign an agreement containing conditions for peaceful conduct, but the wife did not adhere to the terms of the agreement and continued her violence and obstinacy. The wife contends the allegations made by the husband and states that their disputes arose after she lost her job as she became unable to take up the expense of the house. She claims that the husband does not contribute to the financial expenses of the house and family, forcing her to pay for everything including rent, tuition, utility bills, transport and the salary of her domestic help, and has even borrowed money from her. She also states that the husband wants the divorce to use the decree to maliciously divide the joint property held in Australia. The wife insists that she is interested in reconciliation and the continuation of marriage. The husband’s witness indicates that the wife had been disrespectful towards the husband in the presence of the witness, while the wife’s witness testifies that the marital dispute was due to the wife having to bear all the expenses of the house, without any contribution from the husband.

First Instance Court findings: As neither party insisted on the application of the personal laws of their home country, the UAE laws were applied to the case. The court observed that the dispute between the couple was due to the husband’s refusal to carry out his financial obligations which has put immense pressure on the wife. As both parties contributed to the dispute, the court ruled to reject the husband’s request for 099a fault-based divorce and ruled in favour of the wife, charging the husband to treat his wife with kindness and maintaining the bonds of the marital relationship. Consequently, the request for custody of the children was also rejected as the husband will now be required to exercise joint custody of the children with his wife.

The court ruled to reject the wife’s request for reimbursement of the expenses that were taken up by the wife. The court determined that these expenses were taken up without any prior agreement between the couple and without a court order. As a result, the wife’s act will be considered voluntary, which does not require the husband to reimburse the money. Moreover, the agreement entered into between the couple, overseen by their daughter, did not have any indication of these expenses. However, the court ruled to charge the husband to pay an all-inclusive monthly maintenance to the wife as their marriage was still ongoing. The court also ordered the husband to pay child support and the tuition fee for his son. But in the case of the daughter, the court ruled that as she was over 18, she was eligible to litigate regarding personal matters, and her mother cannot litigate on her behalf. As residence was included in the husband’s obligation of maintenance for his wife, the court ruled to charge the husband to pay the residential rent. However, it ruled against the wife’s request for domestic worker charges as both the children did not need a domestic worker to manage their affairs, and the wife had failed to show that she was served by a domestic worker, prior to the marriage. The husband was also charged to pay transportation allowance to the wife.

Court of Appeal findings: Both husband and wife appealed the decision of the Court of First instance. Regarding the husband’s appeal against the rejection of his divorce petition, the Appeal court ruled in the husband’s favor. The court considered the wife’s admittance to using abusive language about the husband and his family via WhatsApp messages and determined that they constituted harm to grant a fault-based divorce. Consequently, the court also granted custody of the minor son to the father, as he had passed the age of mother’s custody, and his mother’s aggressive behavior was seen to pose a negative influence on the son. The court also amended the ruling of the previous court regarding residential allowance, and other maintenance allowance for the wife, charging the husband to only provide the said charges until the date of the final decree for divorce. The court ruled to increase the child support to be provided by the husband.

Court of Cassation findings: The wife appealed the decision of the Appeal court with regard to the grant of divorce, the maintenance provided, the custody of the son, and the reimbursement of the maintenance expenses incurred by her. The court stated that the divorce was granted based on the wife’s acknowledgment during the interrogation session of the allegations of slander. The court stated that harm under a fault-based divorce includes verbal assault, such as slander and defamation, against the other spouse, their parents, or their families. Regarding her claim for reimbursement of expenses, the court ruled that as there was no prior agreement between the husband and the wife to reimburse the expenses incurred by her and neither was the expense undertaken by the wife due to any decree issued by a court, these expenses will be considered to be voluntarily borne by the wife, and therefore, the husband will not be charged to repay the same to the wife. Furthermore, the question of whether the mother's expenditure on the family was done with the father's agreement or with the permission of the judge is a matter of fact that the Trial Court decides based on the evidence and documents presented in the case.

The decision to grant custody of the son to the husband was also appealed by the wife citing the newly passed Federal Decree-Law No. 41 of 2022 concerning Civil Personal Status, which provided for joint custody of children by both parents until the child attains 18 years. But her appeal was rejected by the court as the provisions of the new law only apply from their effective date onwards, and their effects do not retroactively affect events that occurred before unless otherwise stipulated by the law. The wife’s request regarding maintenance allowance and allowance for a domestic worker was also rejected by the court on the basis that upon the granting of divorce, the husband is no longer obliged to provide for the wife. Thus, the court ruled to dismiss the cassation filed by the wife.

In conclusion, verbal abuse will be considered as harm, as required under article 117 and article 122 of the Federal Personal Status Law No. 28 of 2005, to grant a fault-based divorce. Harm in such cases includes committing any form of harm, whether physical, such as physical assault, or verbal, such as slander and defamation, against the other spouse, their parents, or their families, if such behavior is of a nature that makes the continuation of marital relations impossible.

Cassation Appeal No. 128 of 2023, Personal Status Appeal

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.