Case Summary: The plaintiff filed this case against the defendant who is her ex-husband, seeking an increase in the maintenance amounts that he provides for his children who are in the plaintiff’s custody. She also alleged that the defendant had failed to repay some loans that was borrowed from her. The parties were divorced three years earlier, and as they had agreed that the plaintiff will be the custodian of their two daughters, the defendant paid custody charges, child support and other expenses to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that since that agreement, her daughters have grown older and the cost of living has increased, and the defendant now has a higher income, due to which she required a raise in the maintenance provided by the defendant. The plaintiff submitted a list of documents to the court, to support her claim.
However, the defendant claimed that he had been sending the maintenance amount to the plaintiff who was residing outside the country until now, but she had recently moved to the UAE out of spite after she learned that the defendant was getting married. She has now begun living in his only residence and has refused to vacate it, even after the defendant provided her with a separate residence in Sharjah. The defendant had filed a separate case against the plaintiff where he requested that the plaintiff be charged to move to the residence in Sharjah. He also requested the court to charge the plaintiff to send the children to the school in which he had enrolled the children and paid their tuition fee.
First Instance Court (“CFI”) findings: The court decided to join both the cases filed by the parties. As neither party had insisted in the application of foreign laws, the UAE local laws were applied to the case. Regarding the defendant’s request to vacate the current residence and move to the residence provided by him in Sharjah, the court stated that as per article 148 of the Federal decree Law no. 28/2005 regarding personal status, preparing a suitable custodial residence for a child without a source of income, and paying the related bills, is an obligation that falls on the father according to Sharia law, taking into account the financial situation of the father, unless the custodian owns a residence. The defendant was able to prove to the court that the plaintiff already owned a residence in Dubai, which fact was not denied by the plaintiff. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff is not entitled to a custodial residence. However, as the defendant had prepared a separate residence for the plaintiff and the children in Sharjah, the court charged the plaintiff to move to the Sharjah residence with her children. The court also stated that the defendant, being the guardian of the children, has the right to choose the type of education for both his daughters, as per article 148 of the personal status law. Accordingly, the plaintiff was charged to transfer the children to the school chosen by the defendant. The court also ruled that as the plaintiff had failed to obtain the defendant’s permission in enrolling the children to a school in Dubai, the defendant will not be liable to reimburse the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in this regard. He will only be required to pay the tuition of the school in Sharjah, while the plaintiff bears all the expenses related to the Dubai school, until the children are transferred.
Regarding the plaintiff’s request to increase child support and custody charges, the court observed that according to article 63 of the personal status law, maintenance is determined by the financial status of the provider and the economic condition of the receiver. Article 64 states that the maintenance amount may be increased or decreased according to any change in conditions. Furthermore, the Cassation Court has established that agreements related to maintenance and child support are temporary and subject to modifications when required. The court also observed that the determination of quantum of such maintenance amount are matters of fact that are subject to the discretionary authority of the court.
After taking into consideration the present child support and custody charges paid by the defendant and the defendant’s difficult financial status, wherein he was under massive debts, with his car being seized, the court ruled to not increase the amount paid by the defendant. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s request for separate residence and furnishing allowances and allowances towards transportation. However, the court charged the defendant to pay for Eid clothes for the children biannually, and for the hiring of a domestic help, as these expenses fall under the maintenance expense obligatory on the father. The court also charged the defendant to renew the residency of the children and provide them with health insurance.
The request for health insurance and renewal of residency for the plaintiff was rejected by the court as the marital relationship between the parties had ended and the defendant was under no obligation to provide for the plaintiff. Similar reasoning was provided by the court when rejecting the plaintiff’s request to charge the defendant with medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff for her medical treatment. Requests for travel tickets were also rejected by the court.
Regarding the plaintiff’s claims that the defendant had borrowed money from her, the court ruled that as the money was not used for investment purposes or buying a property, the borrowed money is to be treated as a civil matter and was outside the jurisdiction of the family court. The court also stated that the plaintiff’s request for damages was also outside the purview of the family court. Article 282 of the civil transaction laws governed acts of harm and damages, and the plaintiff was directed to approach a competent civil court.
The plaintiff’s claim that the defendant should be made liable to return her jewelry was rejected by the court for lack of appropriate evidence.
Court of Appeal findings: Both parties appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance.
Upon the plaintiff’s request, the court cancelled the requirement for the plaintiff to relocate to the residence chosen by the defendant and instead mandated the defendant to pay an annual rent for a custody residence. Furthermore, the defendant was directed to provide a one-time furnishing allowance and cover utility bills. The Court also ruled in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the school fees, ordering the defendant to assume responsibility for the forthcoming academic year's fees. The court also ordered to increase child support, starting from the date of the initial legal claim.
In response to the plaintiff's challenge regarding the jurisdiction of the Personal Status Court over specific financial claims, the court referred these matters back to the Court of First Instance for further consideration.
Upon returning the case to the Court of First Instance, the plaintiff amended her request to charge the defendant with the payment of an amount of 600,000 dirhams, plus 5% annual interest from the due date, which was the date of the last payment made to him by cheque, until the full amount is paid. Additionally, she requested the defendant to cover fees, expenses, and attorney fees. After reviewing the case, the court ruled in the presence of both parties to charge the defendant with paying the plaintiff 520,000 dirhams, as well as covering the charges and expenses.
This ruling from the Court of First Instance was again appealed by both parties before the Court of Appeal. The appeal court stated that the it will adjudicate the matter based on the true facts of the case and it is not bound to answer every plea and defense raised by the parties separately, as long as the evidence that refutes such pleas or defenses is implied in the grounds of the judgment. Consequently, the court ruled that as the grounds in the case were the same as presented before the Court of First Instance and the appealed ruling had covered all the factual and legal aspects of the case in detail, the court upholds the lower court’s decision and dismisses the appeal filed by the parties.
Court of Cassation findings: The order of the appeal court charging the defendant to repay the loan amount was challenged by him before the Court of cassation. The defendant contended that the court had based its ruling on a transfer of money made by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant stated that this amount was not used to purchase any property, as claimed by the plaintiff, but a part of the amount was used to pay rent on an apartment used by the plaintiff’s family. The court rejected this contention stating that the transfer of money to the defendant was established before the court but the defendant had failed to show the repayment of the money. During a court session, the defendant had admitted to receiving money from the plaintiff and purchasing an apartment with the money, wholly in his name, without registering the corresponding share in the property to the plaintiff. The court had ruled to charge the plaintiff for the repayment of this particular amount. The court of cassation concluded that this decision was justified and established by the documents without violation of the Law, rendering the defendant’s appeal groundless. The cassation was thus duly dismissed.
In Conclusion, the Court of Cassation upheld the trial court's decision and dismissed the defendant’s appeal due to insufficient evidence. The judgement also affirmed the trial court's authority to identify facts, evaluate evidence, and interpret documents. It was evident that the court's rulings had to be based on sufficient evidence found within the case documents. As long as the evidence supported its conclusions, the court was not obligated to address every plea and defences separately. This emphasized the importance of ensuring that the evidence presented was substantial and supported the court's decision-making process. Consequently, the defendant was directed to fulfil financial obligations to the plaintiff.
Cassation Appeal No. 4 of 2023, Personal Status Appeal
Frequently Asked Questions
1. How are financial loan disputes between ex-spouses handled within the UAE personal status courts?
UAE personal status courts generally lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate personal loan or private debt disputes between ex-spouses. Under recent judicial directives (such as Dubai Court of Cassation Decision No. 7 of 2025), a clear boundary separates family law obligations from civil financial matters. The Personal Status Court will strictly reject or redirect personal debt and loan claims to the competent Civil Courts. The only exception where a family court will hear a non-marital financial claim is if the funds were directly used as a contribution toward the construction, renovation, or development of the marital home. All other standard loans or commercial disputes must be litigated entirely within the civil court track.
2. Can the husband request the court to compel the wife to move to the alternative property provided by him, rather than to his only residence?
Yes. Under the UAE Personal Status Law, providing a suitable custodial residence for the children is an absolute statutory obligation imposed on the father. If the father owns or provides an alternative property that is safe, adequate, and matches the family's accustomed standard of living, he has the legal right to request that the custodian (the ex-wife) relocate there. However, the family court retains final discretionary authority. The judge will evaluate the request against the best interests of the children. If the court finds the alternative property unsuitable—due to its location, size, or distance from the children's school—or if it disrupts their established routine, the court will deny the husband's request. In such cases, the court will instead oblige the husband to pay an ongoing housing allowance or cover the annual rent for a separate, suitable custodial home chosen by the mother.
3. What authority does the Dubai Cassation Court have over evidence interpretation in family disputes?
The Dubai Court of Cassation acts strictly as a court of law, not a court of fact. In personal status and family disputes, the court does not re-evaluate evidence, hear witnesses, or reassess the factual findings of the lower courts. The trial courts (the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal) hold exclusive, absolute discretion to interpret the facts, weigh the evidentiary record, and adopt or reject expert findings (such as financial or social welfare reports). The Court of Cassation will generally refrain from interfering with this judicial discretion, provided the lower court's judgment is built upon legally valid, substantial evidence within the case file and does not suffer from "corruption of inference" (defective deduction) or a misapplication of statutory law.
4. Does an ex-husband have a legal obligation to provide health insurance for his ex-wife?
Generally, no. Following the formal dissolution of marriage and the expiration of the waiting period (Iddah), an ex-husband bears no statutory obligation to fund his ex-wife's medical expenses or health insurance. Under UAE personal status laws, the finality of a divorce permanently terminates the husband's financial responsibility toward the wife’s personal maintenance. Furthermore, upon the finality of the divorce, the ex-husband is legally required to cancel her residency visa if she was under his personal sponsorship. Once sponsorship is cancelled, the legal obligation to provide mandatory health insurance (under Dubai and Abu Dhabi health insurance regulations) shifts entirely away from him.
5. Who has the legal right to choose the school and type of education for children in the UAE?
The right is no longer exclusively held by the father. For Muslim families under the Personal Status framework, educational guardianship is legally granted to the custodian mother, meaning the father cannot unilaterally pull a child out of their school or change their curriculum without consent or an order from the Urgent Matters Court. For non-Muslim expatriates under the Civil Personal Status Law, educational decision-making is a joint and equal right shared by both parents post-divorce. If a dispute arises, the family court overrides parental preferences and chooses the school that serves the best interests of the child.
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.
