Court Rejects The Wife's Request For Mut'ah Compensation, As The Divorce Was Requested By The Wife, Thereby Disqualifying Her Mut’ah Rights

Case Summary: The husband files a case against his wife, requesting the court to direct the wife to allow him to see his two minor daughters. The husband alleges that his wife had refused to let him see his children for the previous eight months even though he had attempted all amicable methods to convince her. However, the wife counters that the children were under her custody and care after the husband had left their marital house. She claims that the husband had insulted and abandoned her and had also refrained from the conjugal bed for extended periods of time. She also claims that the husband was exceedingly stingy and did not spend on the family, raising many disputes between them. As their marital life had become intolerable, the wife requested the court for a fault-based divorce. The husband states that he was earning a small salary, much less than his wife and also had lesser benefits. He claims that he does not want a divorce and was looking to reconcile with his wife. To this, the wife produces supporting documents wherein the husband had admitted to having psychological problems due to past traumas that made him excessively aggressive towards his family. He had repeatedly apologized for his behavior and acknowledged the necessity for separation. When the court grants the husband temporary visitation rights, the wife requests the court to revoke the rights until the husband undergoes a psychological test. The witnesses produced by the husband testify that the dispute between the couple was minor and that the husband did not have any psychological issues while the wife’s witnesses testify to the fact that the husband had assaulted the wife and had refused to provide for the children.

First Instance Court findings: As neither party requested the application of their personal laws, the UAE laws were applied to the proceedings. The court ruled to grant a fault-based divorce as per the request of the wife. The court reasoned that as per article 19 of the UAE Federal Law No. 28 of 2005 concerning Personal Status, a marriage legitimated enjoyment between a couple and forming a steady family under the husband’s care. Also, as per article 117, either spouses had the right to request a fault-based divorce on the basis of any harm, material or psychological, that has been caused by the other spouse. As the wife had produced evidence regarding the physical and psychological harm caused by the husband, through electronic messages and photographs, which was further corroborated by the witnesses, the court was satisfied of the harm that was caused, and granted the wife a fault-based divorce.

Regarding the custody of the daughters, as per article 146 of the personal status law, custody of a minor child is given to the mother, even over the father, provided that she meets all the criteria for custodianship. Regarding the wife’s request for maintenance during the iddah period, the court ruled that as the couple was non-Muslim, and as the wife did not have to undertake a waiting period after the divorce, making her free to marry another man immediately, she is not liable to obtain maintenance during the iddah period. Her request for Mut’ah compensation was also rejected by the court on the basis of the fact that the divorce was being granted as per the request of the wife. Article 140 of the law states that Mut’ah is to be given to a woman when a husband divorces his lawfully wedded wife by his sole intention and without her request. However, the court charged the husband to pay custody charges and child support, after taking into account the husband’s limited financial capabilities. Regarding the wife’s request for backdated expenses, the court ruled that the husband had been spending on the family within his means, and the overdue expenses were covered by the wife. Since her expenditure was made without the judge's authorization and without agreement with the husband to reimburse her if he becomes financially capable, this will be considered to be a voluntary contribution on her part. Accordingly, the court ruled to reject the request. The court also rejected the wife’s request for educational expenses of the children. The court reasoned that although the educational expenses are part of a father’s obligation, as the husband did not have the financial means to cover the expenses, the court dismissed the wife’s claim. The court charged the husband to pay for the custodial residence but denied the wife’s request for charges towards a domestic help. As the wife’s employer covered health insurance for the children, the court refused to charge the husband for health insurance. Even though travel tickets are not part of the father’s obligation towards his children, as the husband had admitted that his employer provided travel tickets for the family, the court allowed the wife’s request to charge the husband to provide travel tickets for the children, but only within the limits of what is provided by the husband's employer.

Regarding the husband’s request to allow him visitation rights to see his children, the court ruled in his favour stating that as per article 154 of the personal status law, a parent has the right to visit their child, even if they are in the custody of the other parent, preserving the child’s right to know their parent and their natural family. The husband’s request to charge the wife to enter into her husband's obedience and comply with her marital duties was rejected by the court on account of the court’s earlier decision to grant the divorce.

Court of Appeal findings: The wife appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance. She contended that the maintenance charges granted by the court were insufficient to meet the needs of her children. She also produced her salary certificate to the court which showed a reduced salary than what was reported to the First Instance Court. The court determined that in light of the new facts, it was appropriate to amend the amounts granted by the lower court. The court thus raised the custody charges, child support and the residence allowance to be paid by the husband. The court also overturned the lower court’s ruling regarding iddah allowance, furniture allowance and backdated expenses, and charged the husband to provide all three to the wife. However, her request for Mut’ah charges was again rejected by the court as this was not a case where the husband had given a divorce to the wife against her wishes. The court also ruled to reject the wife’s request for transportation charges, citing husband’s limited income. The request for educational expenses were also rejected as the children had not yet reached the school age. The wife’s request to amend the schedule of visitation granted to the husband was accepted by the court, in a view to uphold the best interests of the children.

Court of Cassation findings: The judgement of the Court of Appeal was challenged by the wife before the Court of cassation. The wife once again requested an amendment in the visitation schedule, requesting the court to reduce the time period. The court rejected this request stating that the matters of time and place of visitation rights fall under the discretion of the trial court. Such matters will not be amended by the court of cassation unless the decision is based on unreasonable grounds. The wife also challenged the appeal court’s decision regarding alimony from the date of abstention stating that there was an error in the date. The court rejected this argument as per Articles 55, 66, and 67 of the personal status law, wherein payment of backdated expenses become obligatory on the husband once there is proof of abstention. The date considered by the trial court was the date from which the husband began to live separately and therefore, this ruling was accepted as valid by the cassation court. The wife’s appeal regarding the quantum of iddah charges was also rejected by the cassation court citing that this matter too was as per the discretion of the lower court. The wife also appealed the decision of the appeal court to reject mut’ah charges and compensation for the damages caused to her. Both contentions were rejected by the Court of Cassation. As per article 140, Mut’ah charges are to be paid in addition to the dowry, when the husband unilaterally divorces his wife, after consummation of marriage, to alleviate the wife’s emotional distress caused by the separation. If the divorce was at the request of the wife, the compensation is not due. Furthermore, the determination of whether the husband divorced his wife at his own will or at her request, as well as assessing whether the wife's departure from the marital residence was for a legitimate reason, and determining the date the husband stopped providing alimony are factual matters that fall within the discretion of the Trial Court. Thus, all the contentions raised by the wife were rejected by the court and the court ruled to dismiss the cassation.

In conclusion, Mut’ah is a form of compensation paid by the husband to the wife, when the husband divorces his wife, at his own will to alleviate the emotional distress caused by his action. The compensation is to be given to a wife who was divorced after consummation if the divorce was solely at the husband's will and not at her request. If the divorce was at her request, compensation is not applicable. Mut’ah compensation is separate from the waiting period alimony.

Cassation Appeal No. 172 of 2023, Personal Status Appeal

Originally published September 21, 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.