Case Summary: Wife who claims to have been abandoned by the husband, seeks custody of children and maintenance for them. The wife alleges that the husband of 7 years had alcoholic issues and a neurological condition due to which he was aggressive towards her and the children. When she requested him to obtain treatment for his condition, he expelled her from their marital home, shortly after the birth of their second child. Since then, he had stopped providing for the family financially due to which she was forced to start working. Her work was based on commission instead of salary due to which she had been unable to earn anything. The husband was extremely wealthy as he owned a company, a house in an upscale locality and many luxury vehicles. The wife also claimed that when her husband learned of the case, he had declared that he would not be returning to the UAE. The wife did not seek divorce in her petition.
First Instance Court (“CFI”) findings: As the husband did not respond to the summons of the court, the judgement was passed ex-parte. The wife had not insisted on the application of personal laws of her country. Therefore, the UAE laws were applied to the case. Regarding the wife’s request for custody over her two minor children, the court stated that although joint custody is to be provided as per article 10 of Federal Decree-Law No. 41 of 2022 on Civil Personal Status, since the children were currently under the sole custody of the wife, and as the husband was not present in the country for a year, it would be impossible to grant joint custody to the parents and as a result, the court ruled to grant sole custody to the wife. Consequently, the court also charged the husband to provide custody charges to the wife and an allowance for residence, furniture and utility bills. Regarding child support, as per article 4 of the federal civil personal status law, men and women are equal in their rights and duties, and must bear the financial responsibilities equally between them. But in this case, as the wife had shown that neither her nor the children had any source of income and as the husband was wealthy, the court ruled to solely charge the husband with child support, health insurance and tuition for the children. In case of the younger child, tuition will be required to be provided once she is eligible for formal education.
Court of Appeal findings: The husband and the wife appealed the rulings of the first instance court. The husband stated that he was wrongly charged with providing custody charges and residential and utility allowance as the couple was not divorced and these charges do not apply in their case. Furthermore, the wife and children were living in the residence provided by him. The court ruled to uphold this argument and annulled the previous ruling by the court of first instance regarding residence allowance. The ruling on child support was also appealed as the husband claimed that he was already providing for the family and spending exorbitantly on them. The proof of husband’s wealth was also proved to the court. Consequently, the court ruled to increase the child support charged to the husband. As the husband had not made any claims for custody of the children, the court did not provide consideration to that point. However, the husband requested the court to order his wife to provide him access to his children. Since this was a new request presented before the court, not forming a part of the original suit, the request was duly rejected by the court of appeal. The wife’s request to recalculate the maintenance was rejected by the court stating that it was a new claim. As the wife had failed to prove any new arguments, her appeal was duly rejected.
Court of Cassation findings: The rulings of the appeal court were further appealed by the wife while the husband requested the dismissal of the wife’s cassation application. The wife contended that although the appeal court had ruled to increase the child support to be provided by the husband, this amount was still too small, particularly when compared to the financial capabilities of the husband. The court rejected this argument stating that the quantum of maintenance was up to the discretion of the trial court. When the wife requested the court to investigate the wealth of the husband and the date from which he had abstained from providing for her, the court rejected the request as it believed that the case’s documents were sufficient for the determination of the facts of the case and an additional investigation was unnecessary. The wife also claimed that the appeal court had erred in annulling the first instance court’s order regarding residence allowance. The court determined that the husband must be charged to pay the residence allowance.
The wife had pointed out that the document provided by the husband indicating that he was providing for the residence of the children was in actuality a document that showed that the lease for the residence is under the wife’s name. The court ruled that the trial court had based its ruling on a document that contradicts the facts established in it. As this ruling was incorrect, the cassation court ruled to annul this ruling of the previous court.
Accordingly, the husband was charged with providing for the custodial residence. The wife claimed that the court had failed to charge the husband to pay tuition fees for their youngest child for the current year. The court stated that the father's obligation towards tuition fees does not arise until the child attains educational age thus rejecting the wife’s contention. The wife further contested the lower court’s ruling to reject custody charges when her husband had not specifically asked for, indicating that the appeal court should not have addressed the matter. The Court of Cassation ruled that since the husband in his appeal had asked for the dismissal of the original suit, it would include his request to reject custody charges. Therefore, the wife’s argument in this regard stood invalid.
In Conclusion, the maintenance of a young child having no financial resources, must be borne by the child’s father. Food, education and residence falls under this obligation. However, as per the rulings of the court of Cassation, a child must be enrolled in private education, with the consent of the father, taking into account his financial capabilities, so that it does not cause him financial hardship. Furthermore, nurseries for toddlers are considered care centers as opposed to educational institutions, and a father is not obligated to pay for them except when he does so on his own accord.
Citation: Cassation Appeal No. 261 of 2023, Personal Status Appeal
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Do the personal status laws of the UAE require the father to pay the nursery school fees?
Generally, no. Under the standard application of UAE personal status laws, a father’s statutory educational obligation is strictly tied to formal school education (starting from Kindergarten/KG1). Historically, the Dubai Court of Cassation has treated nurseries for toddlers as care and socialization facilities rather than compulsory educational institutions, meaning the father is not automatically obliged to pay for them unless he explicitly consents or voluntarily agrees to cover the costs. However, the family courts retain wide discretionary power based on the best interests of the child. A judge may order the father to pay or contribute to nursery fees if the mother can demonstrate a clear necessity—such as the mother being employed full-time, the child having specific developmental or medical needs that require early intervention, or the family’s high socio-economic standing making nursery attendance the accustomed standard of living.
2. Can a parent present new requests during a hearing in the personal status appeal court?
As a general rule, no. Under UAE Civil Procedure Law, the Court of Appeal will dismiss entirely new substantive claims (such as a first-time request for visitation or an unrelated financial demand) that were not part of the original litigation before the Court of First Instance. However, a strict exception applies to personal status matters: parents can introduce new requests on appeal if they are directly subsidiary to the original claim or arose after the initial judgment was issued. This includes claiming child maintenance that has newly accrued during the appeal period or requesting urgent travel bans and passport controls connected to an existing custody dispute.
3. Why do UAE personal status courts refuse custody fee requests by married parents?
UAE personal status courts reject custody fee claims from married couples, fees for caretaking are only owed after divorce. If the divorce is not finalized, both parents have structural legal responsibilities. No spouse can claim a financial fee for the physical service of caretaking minor children.
4. Must the UAE Court of Cassation carry out special evidentiary investigations to determine the wealth of parents?
No. The Court of Cassation does not review facts or conduct evidentiary investigations; its sole mandate is to ensure the lower courts applied the law correctly. The authority to evaluate a parent's wealth and decide whether to order a separate financial investigation lies strictly with the trial courts. If the record contains sufficient evidence (such as bank statements or corporate records) to determine a parent's actual financial capacity, the trial court may properly deny a motion for additional asset tracing. The Court of Cassation will routinely uphold this judicial discretion as long as the trial court's assessment is anchored to valid documentation in the case file.
5. Can a parent request child visitation rights for the first time in an appeal hearing?
Yes, as long as child custody was part of the original claim. Although UAE procedural law generally bars parties from introducing new demands on appeal, the courts make a strict exception for child visitation. Because visitation is legally viewed as an automatic, subordinate component of custody, personal status appeal courts will accept and adjudicate a first-time visitation request to ensure the child's right to maintain contact with both parents is protected.
About the Author
Dr. Hassan Elhais publishes educational analysis of UAE personal status and family judgments, including divorce, maintenance, child custody and inheritance. For readers researching family lawyers in Dubai, his case-study writing provides context for the issues considered by the courts. These educational summaries do not imply that the cases were handled by the author or his team.
Copyright © of this article is retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. We explicitly grant you permission to download a copy, without any alteration, of this article
for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or any charge. This article can be utilized on your website or for marketing, however, we grant you permission
to host this article on your website and no other rights. This content should not be altered in any way or sold commercially in any format without prior permission of the copyright holder.
During reference of this article, full biographic details entailing the name of the author, his designation, the institute and the publishing date of the article shall be provided.
