Dubai Cassation Court Upholds Maliki Principle On Reimbursement Claims In Family Court Proceedings

Case Summary:Plaintiff files a case against the defendant who is her ex-husband, seeking maintenance in the form of backdated expenses and child support and related expenses for their child. The plaintiff states that although she had been an exemplary wife to the defendant, and discharged all her duty as a wife and mother, the defendant had failed to reciprocate. He allegedly treated the plaintiff with cruelty, hostility, humiliation, and disrespect, since the beginning of their marriage, and was negligent of his responsibilities towards the family. Despite having a high income, he did not provide financial security to his family, forcing the plaintiff to exclusively bear all the financial expenses. As a result, she was compelled to move out of their marital house and file for divorce in an Indian court. She filed the current case to claim the remaining rights for herself and her daughter.

The defendant contended the plaintiff’s claims stating that he had attempted to reach a settlement with the plaintiff during the family guidance proceedings but the claims made by the plaintiff were excessive and unreasonable. He stated that he pays the rent towards the marital residence, which was abandoned by the plaintiff, when she left the residence with his daughter, without any justification. He claimed that he had a limited income due to his new business, and he was terminated from his previous employment as he was unable to perform well at his job due to his marital problems. But he continues to cover the tuition fee of his daughter. He however admitted that he stopped providing maintenance in the form of food, shelter etc., once the plaintiff abandoned the marital home.

First Instance Court (“CFI”) findings: As neither party requested the application of the personal laws of their home country, the UAE laws were applied to the case. Regarding the plaintiff’s request to be granted backdated expenses, the court ruled that although it is the duty of a husband to provide for the maintenance of his wife, covering food, shelter and other related expenses as per articles 66 and 67 of the Federal decree Law No. 28 of 2005, the law does not apply in this case as the parties were non-Muslims, and they had different sets of obligations and rights towards each other. The wife was not bound to the husband in the way that Muslim women are bound to their husbands. The parties were equal in dependency since the husband cannot marry someone else as long as he is under the bond of marriage. Thus, he is restricted to her the way she is restricted to him. Additionally, he does not have authority over her according to their religious belief, as he cannot command her to obey him, nor can she comply with his commands. Instead, they are equal in rights and duties. Thus, a non-Muslim husband is not obliged to pay for the wife if she has enough income to support herself. Additionally, the plaintiff admitted that she undertook the expenses without any intention of returning to the husband, showing that it was voluntarily done by her. Accordingly, the court ruled to reject the plaintiff’s request. However, the court charged the defendant to provide child support, allowances towards utility bills, payment of tuition fee and health insurance for his daughter as it is obligatory for the father to provide these expenses for his child, when the child does not have any source of income. The court also ruled that allowance towards custodial residential must also be provided to the plaintiff as this too falls within the obligation of the father, and as the mother did not own any residences.

Court of Appeal findings: Both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed the judgement of the Court of First Instance. The husband stated that the judgement was wrong in charging him with the payment for the custody residence as it was the plaintiff who left the residence without any justification. This contention was accepted by the court. The court stated that the husband cannot be faulted for not paying the custodial residence from the day she left the marital house and the court re-ruled to charge the husband to pay such allowances only from the date of the filing of the case. The plaintiff faulted the decision of the lower court for rejecting her application for backdated expenses. The court stated that a woman has the right to seek reimbursement of expenses if she can prove that the expenses were incurred by her with the intention to claim the reimbursement from the husband. Otherwise, such expenditure by a wife will be considered to be voluntary. The court observed that the plaintiff’s submissions lacked assertion or proof as she was unable to show that her husband was financially well off, that the expenditure was made after an agreement or a court order or that she intended to claim reimbursement of money. The court determined that the challenged judgement had accurately applied the laws and therefore, the plaintiff’s contentions were rejected. However, the court directed that this will be the sole reason for the rejection of the request for backdated expenses, and the distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims must not be endorsed.

The court dismissed all the other demands made by the parties as they were merely repetitions and the judgement of the trial court was based on solid evidence and arguments.

Court of Cassation findings: The decisions issued by the Appeal court was challenged by the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff contended that she must be reimbursed for the expenditures made by her, during the course of the marriage. The cassation court rejected this contention stating that the plaintiff had failed to provide any proof that she had any intention of obtaining reimbursement of expenditure at the time the expenditure was made. When a wife spends on her family, the default assumption is that she does so voluntarily due to kinship, relation, or customary practice. The court also pointed out that determining whether there was intention to seek reimbursement, is a matter of fact to be decided as per the discretion of the trial court, based on the circumstances of the case, and documents and evidences presented therein. Consequently, the Court of Cassation ruled to uphold the decision made by the appeal court. The wife’s argument that the maintenance amount charged to the husband was below the sufficiency threshold was also rejected by the Court of Cassation. The court stated that as per article 63 of the personal status law, the maintenance amount to be charged is determined based on the possibilities of the debtor, the circumstances of the beneficiary and the economic situation, in place and time, provided it does not fall below the sufficiency level to secure what is necessary for the beneficiary. Moreover, the determination of these factors is to be made by the trial court based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the contention made by the plaintiff is essentially an argument regarding the jurisdiction of the Trial Court in assessing maintenance, which is beyond the powers of the Court of Cassation. Therefore, the argument was rejected.

The defendant’s appeal argued that the Appeal Court had wrongly ruled to charge him with providing the residential expenses to the Plaintiff, even though the plaintiff was the one who abandoned the marital residence without any justification. The court explained that as per article 63 and 78 of the law, alimony or maintenance includes money and other necessities such as food, clothing, housing, medicine, transportation, and domestic services. The alimony of a small child who has no financial resources is on the father until the marriage of the girl, if it’s a daughter. According to article 148, the father is obligated to provide residential allowance to the custodian who is fostering his child, unless the latter owns a dwelling in which she resides. As it was established that the plaintiff does not reside in the marital house, the defendant was rightly charged to provide custodial allowances to the plaintiff. Thus, the court rejected the argument of the defendant, and duly dismissed the cassation.

In Conclusion, as per the Maliki school of thought, a wife has the right to demand reimbursement from her affluent husband for what she spent on herself or her minor child if she proves that she intended to seek reimbursement from him later. But the default assumption is that when she spends, she does so voluntarily due to kinship, relation, or customary practice.

Cassation Appeal No. 16 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.