Background:
The case is between a divorced couple; they were married in 2009, and they have two children, born in 2010 and 2015. This dispute related to child custody, financial support, and some other obligations evolved through the divorce of the parties in 2024. The husband divorced the wife when he was abroad, and that too was without her knowledge, which causes her both emotional and financial hardships.
Following the divorce, the disputes between them escalated to initiate legal proceedings. The main issue was related to the custody of the children, how financial responsibilities will be managed, whether the wife is entitled to compensation for damages, and whether she had a monetary share in the properties they jointly owned, which were sold by the husband. The court carefully determines responsibilities relating to the upbringing and welfare of children.
First instance court
In the first instance court, both parties claimed against each other extensively; the mother sought sole custody of the children since the husband used to travel outside the country; she is taking care of the children. Further, she claimed financial support, including monthly maintenance, school fees, housing expenses, and compensation for damages of sufferings. She also raised another claim of a share in the real estate property, which was sold by the husband in 2024, claiming that she had financially contributed during their marriage and he is taking advantage of the fact that the property was registered in his name.
The father contested the case and filed a counterclaim requesting sole custody of the children, claiming that he was most suitable to take care of and nurture the children properly. And also, he claimed compensation for his wife’s behavior had harmed his reputation and caused him emotional stress. The court appointed a financial expert to review the case files and other documents submitted by the parties to assess the financial situation of the people. And to determine whether the husband owes the wife any monetary amounts representing her contribution to the sale of the real estate property.
Judgment
- The court imposed a balanced approach in the custody of children by providing joint custody of the minors between the parents. Considering the best interest of the children, the court established a rotation system weekly; the children would reside with each parent alternately.
- The court, after reviewing the report of the financial expert, ordered that the father has to pay AED 5000 monthly for the support of the children covering living expenses.
- Moreover, the father is required to pay AED 50000 annually for housing support and pay AED 1000 monthly for utilities. And he was also required to provide medical insurance and bear costs for some extracurricular activities.
The court of appeal
In the court of appeal, both parties challenged the lower court's order; the father contended that the joint custody arrangements were inappropriate because the mother was unfit to care for the children and had neglected them. Further, he argued that the first instance court imposed on him an excessive financial obligation.
The mother argued for enhancement of financial support; the ordered financial support is insufficient, and some of her claims were wrongly denied.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the lower court after careful review of the case and assessing both the legal reasoning, whether the applied legal provisions are correct or not, and factual findings of the lower court. The Court also observed that the lower court maintained an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of the parents while considering the best interests of the children. Hence, dismissed both appeals.
Court of Cassation
The father challenged the judgment of the court of appeal before the Court of Cassation. The court of cassation only reviews whether the lower court application of legal provisions is correct or not and does not reassess the factual findings of the lower courts. The father argued the same argument regarding the joint custody of children; the mother was not fit to take care of the children because of the inappropriate behaviors. And he challenged the denial of the claim of the compensation for the reputational damage. Further, he contended that financial obligations ordered by the lower court were inconsistent while considering the joint custody.
Judgement
The court upheld the lower court judgment and dismissed the cassation appeal by confirming the shared custody of minor children, along with the father’s obligations towards the children for support and housing allowance.
Hence, the father had to pay AED 5000 per month for their support, including food, clothing, summer and winter attire, holidays, transportation, and recreation, which is to be divided equally between the two children. Furthermore, the court orders the father to pay the mother housing expenses for the custody of the two children, an amount of AED 50000 annually and AED 1000 monthly for utilities. The court rejected the father’s claim for compensation for reputational damages.
Conclusion
This judgment is about the modern shift towards the co-parenting custody model of the UAE; it emphasizes the best interest of the child rather than parental exclusivity. Through this ruling, the court reaffirms that joint custody is the default principle in the case of a minor, the compensation is determined based on the strict proof of harm, and the father’s obligations will remain unchanged with him and are not subjected to the joint custody. Also, the court ensures discretion based only on grounded evidence, not on mere allegations, which helps to protect the rights of both parents while prioritizing the child's welfare in custody decisions.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why did the Court adopt shared custody instead of granting sole custody to the father?
The court determines the child custody is in accordance with Article 10 of Federal Law No. 41 of 2022; it provides shared custody as the default principle of post-divorce. In this case, the allegations of misconduct raised against the mother are in lack of sufficient proof; hence, the court observed that there is no scope for granting sole custody to the father, considering the psychological stability and balanced parental involvement.
2. What legal standard governs removal of one parent from shared custody?
The exclusion of one parent from joint custody is based on clear and convincing evidence that the parent is causing serious harm to the child and is unable to take care of the child, such as failing to perform the parental obligations as given in the executive regulations. It is mandatory to convince the court that the act of such a parent will endanger the child’s welfare.
3.Why was the father’s compensation claim rejected?
The father’s claim of compensation for reputational damages was denied due to non-submission of valid proof during the stipulated time; the court relied on the principle of burden of proof, which lies with the claimant, which means whoever makes a claim must prove it. In the UAE, the court will not grant compensation in case of lack of evidentiary support.
4. Does shared custody affect the obligation to pay child support?
No, according to Articles 11 and 12 of the Executive Regulations, the obligation of a father towards a child will remain unchanged. And court-ordered on the basis of the obligor's financial capacity and the beneficiary's needs, it is an independent physical custody and does not affect the child support.
5.How did the Court assess the financial obligations imposed on the father?
The court determined the financial obligation by assessing the documents such as income evidence like salary certificate, bank statements, and also the needs of children considering their ages. The court used their discretionary power to impose the financial obligation without excessive burden.
6. What would change if evidence of neglect had been proven?
If either party’s neglect is proved in court beyond doubt, the court could exclude that parent from the joint custody and grant it to the suitable parent by considering the welfare of the child. The law permits flexibility in child custody cases; the aim is that the best interest requires protective interventions.
7.Why did the Court maintain housing allowance despite shared custody?
It is because of the court’s observation on the child that they require a stable residence, even if the children spend time with both parents. Constantly changing homes can be disruptive for them. Hence, the court ordered the housing support to ensure a consistent place for children to live and grow up comfortably.
8.Can either parent request modification of custody arrangements later?
Yes, it can be modifiable when either parent files a petition because of any changes in the circumstances, like one parent relocating, health issues affecting a parent or the child, or concerns about the child’s safety. The custody judgments are not permanent forever, and they are subjected to judicial review considering the welfare of the child.
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.
