Background:
In 2025, A wife petitioned against her husband claiming spousal maintenance after the reconciliation did not work, requesting AED 5,000 per month, which would cover all the costs of maintenance but not housing. She further demanded that he carry on paying to her the villa they are currently staying in as the marital home, utility bills, salary of the maid, school fees and supplies, child support, Eid clothes of their two children, a modern vehicle with a driver and recompense her to furnish the marital home as per Article 51 of the Personal Status Law.
Her assertions were founded on her position as his legal wife on a valid marriage contract and the mother of his children. She claimed that since they got married, the husband had not taken care of her or their children, though he was rich, earning more than AED 40,000 each month, rent, and two plots of land, three cars, and four business licenses as a partner.
Findings of the Court of First Instance: The court decided in favor of the wife and awarded the following:
- Spousal maintenance of AED 3,000 per month, to take care of all the maintenance but not housing.
- Ongoing supply of the villa which the family is staying in as the matrimonial house with the husband paying all the utility bills related to the house.
- Paying the maid salary
- Payment of tuition and transportation fees for the two children, to the extent not covered by the claimant’s employer.
- Provision of a laptop worth AED 1,500 for each child, and a monthly
- Child maintenance of AED 2,000 per month for each child. Transportation allowance of AED 1,500 for the wife and children.
- An allowance of AED 1,000 per child for Eid clothing for each Eid festival.
All other claims submitted by the wife were rejected.
Findings of court of appeal:
The husband and the wife had appealed against the rulings. Both appeals were accepted by the court which then combined them into one proceeding. It turned down the appeals in a consolidated decision and upheld the first judgment.
Findings of the Court of Cassation:
The husband was not satisfied and, therefore, he appealed to the Court of Cassation (No. 710/2025).
The husband appealed the first, the second, the fourth and the sixth decisions as misjudgments of the law, faulty reasoning and flawed in its substance.
He claimed that he was not a rich man and that he earned about AED 35,000 monthly and explained that one of the plots was a home where his mother lived, the commercial licenses were not valid and that all the vehicles were aged with the latest being 2010.
To defend his financial status, he provided his salary certificate and bank statements claiming that the court ignored these documents and failed to examine and scrutinize them appropriately, but imposed financial obligations that were above his real capacity.
This argument was rejected. Article 95 and 96(1) of the Personal Status Laws define maintenance as a right and the sum of which has to meet the needs of the recipient depending on the financial ability of the guardian. Although the husband said that he had other commitments and loans, he could not prove it, and the responsibility of which is on him.
According to the husband, the law was incorrectly applied and there was wrong reasoning in the judgment. He argues that by refusing to have Physical relationship with her husband after seven years and leaving the marital home without his consent, the wife was rebellious and therefore, she does not deserve to be paid spousal maintenance. He also claims to have been the provider of the marital home and the household expenses, which is corroborated by the witness testimony.
This complaint was fully dismissed. Article 99 of the Federal Law of Personal Status establishes that a wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband under a valid marriage, regardless of her own wealth. However, Article 103 stipulates that this right is forfeited if, without legitimate excuse, she refuses marital relations, declines to cohabitate with her husband in the marital home or travel without her husband’s permission. This right is only extinguished by performance or discharge, and claims cannot be heard for periods exceeding two years from the date of filing.
The burden of proof rests with the husband to prove for forfeiture of maintenance. Conversely, the wife bears the burden of proving the husband's failure to provide maintenance.
The court established that the testimony of a sibling is legally admissible in family matters. The mere existence of a dispute between a witness and a party does not, by itself, invalidate their testimony. For testimony to be ruled inadmissible, it must be shown that the witness stands to gain a benefit or avoid a loss by giving it. In this instance, the husband failed to prove either the bias of the wife's witnesses or that their testimony would lead to any such personal gain or protection from loss.
Accordingly, the court of first instance correctly held that the wife had discharged her burden of proving the husband's failure to pay maintenance, whereas the husband did not satisfy his burden of proving the alleged rebellious conduct by the wife.
As for the husband’s request on staying of proceeding, the court explained that in accordance with Article 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which establishes that proceedings may be on hold only if a party raises a separate issue that is essential to outcome of the case, and which falls outside the jurisdiction of the court hearing the main dispute. In the present matter, the appellant's request for suspension was correctly rejected, as the case concerns a marital dispute fully within the Personal Status Court's jurisdiction. Even if the issue were framed as the wife’s disobedience, such matters are intrinsic to family law proceedings and do not constitute a separate issue requiring staying the proceeding.
Regarding the husband’s challenge to the second ruling, he alleges that the court erred in applying the law and that its reasoning was deficient because it ordered him to pay 1,500 dirhams for transportation while the wife owns a car. This complaint is unfounded. Article 106 of Federal Personal Status Law stipulates that the maintenance of a minor child with no independent means shall be borne by the father. The mother is only responsible for the child’s maintenance in two cases: first, if the father is deceased and left no estate; second, if the father is financially incapable of providing for the child. Consequently, the wife is not obligated to use her own car to transport the children as long as the father does not fall into either of the exceptional categories that would shift the maintenance duty to her.
Thus, the appeal of the husband is denied.
To sum up, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal of the husband and upheld the decisions of the lower courts. The husband did not prove his burden of demonstrating the forfeiture of maintenance that is due to his wife and his financial incapacity and the wife was able to demonstrate non-payment of maintenance. The court was right in its use of the personal status laws and civil procedure laws to dismiss every procedural and evidentiary objection.
Conclusion:
A mother is obligated to provide for her child in only two circumstances: first, if the father has passed away and has no assets; and second, if the father is financially unable to provide for his child. If either of these conditions is met, the mother is obligated to provide support, provided she is financially capable, and she retains the right to seek reimbursement from the father for what she has spent if he becomes financially capable.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. When may a husband stop maintenance payments for a ‘valid legal reason’?
A husband may be entitled to stop maintenance payments if he can prove ‘Nushuz’ or marital disobedience. This is generally when the wife leaves the marital home without good reason or refuses to travel with him without a proper reason. But the legal onus is on the husband and the court will look into whether the wife actually left the marital home due to the husband’s harm or lack of providing a safe place to live.
2. On what basis does the Court of Cassation determine the “quantum” or amount of spousal maintenance?
The Court of Cassation holds that the amount of spousal maintenance should be determined in the light of the husband’s financial capacity (affluence or hardship) and the prevailing economic conditions of the time. The court has judicial discretion to make sure that the amount is “sufficient” to meet the wife’s essential needs such as food, clothing, and medical care while making sure that the amount does not exceed the husband’s reasonable ability to pay.
3. In what scenario will the wife be responsible for the maintenance of the child under UAE law?
The mother’s responsibility depends entirely on the legal regime governing the family:
Under the Personal Status Law (For Muslims): The father bears absolute financial responsibility for the child. The mother becomes responsible only in two exceptional circumstances: first, if the father is deceased and leaves behind no estate; second, if the father is judicially proven to be completely financially incapable of providing support. Even if the mother is highly affluent, the father cannot shift his maintenance obligations to her outside of these narrow legal exceptions.
Under the Civil Personal Status Law (For Non-Muslims): Parental responsibility is structured around absolute equality and joint custody. Consequently, both parents share the financial obligations of raising the child. If the mother is financially capable, the court may even reduce or exempt the father's specific maintenance contributions, such as housing allowances.
4. What happens if there is a trial and the husband and wife have conflicting claims about this “provision of maintenance”?
If the wife claims she has not received maintenance and the husband contents he has paid, the court will ask the husband to produce documentary proof of payment (such as bank transfers or signed receipts) or to show any rebellious behaviour by the wife. If no proof is submitted, the court will tend to favor the wife, because the legal presumption is that maintenance is owed unless the husband can prove he has fulfilled his obligation or that the wife has waived her right to it under certain legal grounds.
5. Is a witness statement of a sibling admissible in court in family matters?
Yes. The court established this kind of testimony is admissible in family matters. The existence of a dispute between the witness and the party shall not invalidate their testimony. It is inadmissible unless there is proof that the witness may gain a benefit or avoid a loss by giving the statement.
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.
