Case summary:
The wife has alleged that she has been receiving more maintenance, child support and housing allowance due to the increment in the income of the husband. After reconciliation failed, she filed a case against her ex-husband in Personal Status Court, requesting the following:
An increase in the annual housing allowance from AED 72,000 to AED 150,000, and in utility bills from AED 1,200 to AED 3,000 per month, along with a one-time furniture allowance, on the grounds that their one daughter and two sons require larger accommodation as they grow older. 2.An increase in child support from AED 7,200 to AED 15,000 per month. 3. payment of AED3,000 for school supplies 4. Replacement of the current vehicle (2005 model) with a modern vehicle (2025 model), along with a monthly allowance of AED 2,000 for petrol, AED 500 for Salik, and coverage of necessary maintenance costs. 5. Provision of a housemaid with a valid working visa and payment of her monthly salary. 6. An increase in Eid clothing allowance from AED 500 to AED 1,500 per child. 7. Monthly payment of AED 5,000 for private tuition fees. 8.Coverage of annual travel tickets and related expenses. 9. Payment of all her fees, expenses, and legal costs, given her role as the former wife and mother of his three children.
Court of First Instance findings:
After reviewing the evidence and deliberation, the judge ruled 1. An increase in the annual housing allowance to AED80,000 and in utility bills up to AED 1,500 per month, effective from the legal claim; 2. An increase in child support to AED 8,100; 3. 3. payment of AED1,000 for school supplies; 4. A replacement of another car worth A40,000 5. Reject all other requests.
The husband filed a counterclaim against the ex-wife, which was dismissed by the court.
Court of Appeal findings:
The court attempted to facilitate reconciliation between the parties, but it was unsuccessful. The court accepted the form and rules to amend the value of the substitute car into AED 60,000; the appealed judgment was upheld in all other respects, except for the amendment mentioned above.
The wife, dissatisfied with the outcome, filed an appeal in Cassation with No. 706/2025 on the grounds of violation of the law, insufficient reasoning, flawed rationale, infringement of the right of defense, and disregard of evidence in the case file.
She argued that the Court had erroneously underestimated the cost of living and the price of necessities, which increase as the children grow older. Such as the market price of a four-wheel-drive vehicle and the inadequate value of the awarded iPad, set at only AED 1,000. In addition, she argued that the court was not reasonable to deny the provision of a maid. She also highlighted that travel expenses and private tuition fees, which are essential for the growing children, were unjustly disregarded.
Court of Cassation findings:
The court ruled dismiss the appeal. Several legal principles guide the court when assessing the maintenance, a guardian is obliged to pay. First, Article 63(2) of the Personal Status Law provides: “Maintenance shall be determined according to the financial ability of the maintainer, the condition of the dependent, and the economic circumstances of the time and place. However, maintenance shall not be less than what is sufficient.”
For instance, the provision of a maid is contingent upon evidence demonstrating such a necessity that the claimant failed to provide it. As long as the trial court reached a sound judgment after evaluating the need for a maid, an appeal against that decision merely reflects dissatisfaction with the conclusion of the Court of First Instance, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Cassation.
Second, the amount of child support and any deviation is a matter of fact which is within the discretionary power of the judge in charge. The case cannot be reviewed as long as the ruling is made on reasonable grounds and evidence contained in the case file. The father is required to meet basic needs like food, beverage, clothing, housing, education and services. Non-school costs, such as the cost of private tutoring, are however optional and have to be considered at the discretion of the court depending on the best interests of the child and the financial ability of the father. In line with this, the application to get private tuition was denied. In comparison, a laptop is an essential item in the life and education of children. Therefore, the court directed the guardian to compensate AED 1,000 per child on an iPad, which is not less than the sufficient limit. On the issue of travel tickets and other related costs, the court said that it is not part of the maintenance duty of the father.
Finally, in deciding on maintenance, the court shall look at the obligation of the guardian and weigh the income level of the guardian against the needs of the children that have been established taking into consideration all the circumstances. The Court of First Instance is at liberty to decide on the amount of maintenance to be paid depending on the evidence that can be presented. An appeal grounded solely in dissatisfaction with the trial court's factual conclusions and discretionary assessments falls outside the scope of cassation.
Conclusion:
The court assessed the financial capacity of the respondent and the needs of the dependents in the exercise of its discretionary authority. Based on this assessment, it ruled to increase maintenance and allowances, determined the appropriate value for the iPad, and rejected the request to increase the Eid clothing allowance, as stated in the operative part of the judgment.
Accordingly, the conclusion reached by the contested judgment—upholding the appellate judgment in this regard—is correct and contains no violation of the law. The grounds raised by the appellant amount to nothing more than a challenge to the trial court’s discretionary authority in determining the amount and basis of maintenance and allowances, a matter that falls outside the scope of review of this Court.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. How does the court determine maintenance for children?
The court will consider the financial capacity of the maintenance provider and the needs of the dependents. The UAE Personal Status Law provides: “Maintenance shall be determined according to the financial ability of the maintainer, the condition of the dependent, and the economic circumstances of the time and place.” However, maintenance shall not be less than what is sufficient.
2. Is the mother's personal income taken into account when calculating child maintenance?
It depends entirely on the legal regime governing the family:
Under Sharia-Based Personal Status Law (For Muslims): No. The father bears an absolute, non-negotiable obligation to provide child maintenance. Even if the mother is a high earner, her personal income is not factored into the calculation and does not absolve the father from his duties as the primary financial provider.
Under Civil Personal Status Law (For Non-Muslims): Yes. This framework operates on strict gender equality and shared parental responsibility. The court assesses the financial capacity of both parents. If the mother is highly affluent, the judge has the discretion to adjust the maintenance quantum or exempt the father from certain obligations, such as child housing allowances, based on her personal solvency.
3. How does the court calculate the “sufficiency level” for child support in Dubai?
The "sufficiency level" represents the baseline financial support required to secure a dignified upbringing for the child, covering essentials such as housing, food, clothing, education, and medical care. Rather than using an arbitrary calculation, Dubai courts determine this level using a balanced, multi-step approach:
Standardized Matrix: Judges utilize the standard tables provided in the Dubai Procedural Guide, which categorize baseline maintenance into specific bands matching the father's income brackets and number of dependents.
Lifestyle & Economic Realities: The court assesses the family’s historical standard of living during the marriage alongside real-time economic indicators, explicitly factoring in inflation, Dubai's rental market shifts, and the evolving age-based needs of the child.
Capacity Investigations (Tahari): The court balances these needs against the father's actual financial capacity. If income transparency is lacking, the court appoints a financial expert to investigate bank accounts, assets, and corporate holdings to ensure the final award provides an adequate standard of living without acting as an unfair penalty on the father.
4. When can an existing maintenance order be modified or increased?
An existing maintenance order can be modified or increased if there is a substantial and unforeseen change in circumstances affecting either the payer or the dependents. Valid grounds for an increase include a significant rise in the father's income, macro-economic inflation, or the children entering older developmental and private educational stages that carry higher living costs.
However, under UAE personal status frameworks, modifications are strictly bound by the following statutory parameters:
The One-Year Rule: A claim to increase or decrease maintenance is generally inadmissible until one full year has elapsed from the date of the last judgment that actively modified the amount, unless exceptional or urgent circumstances are proven. (A prior dismissal of an increase claim does not trigger this one-year waiting period).
Retroactive Cap: If an increase is judicially approved, the court may apply the higher rate retroactively for a maximum lookback window of six months from the date the modification claim was filed (court’s discretion).
5. What proof is needed to show a father’s financial capability in a maintenance case?
The court assesses a father's financial capacity by evaluating concrete evidence such as bank statements, property title deeds, corporate registration/trade licenses, and official salary certificates. If a father claims unemployment, insolvency, or a low baseline income, the court will look beyond the documentation to examine his actual lifestyle. Evidence of luxury car ownership, real estate assets, business shares, or frequent international travel allows the court to exercise its judicial discretion to infer a higher financial capability. In cases where income is not transparently declared, the court routinely appoints an accounting expert to conduct a formal financial investigation (Tahari report) into his global assets, ensuring child support is calculated based on true financial capacity rather than artificial "paper poverty."
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.
