2023-04-24 21:24:50
Juma Al Nuaimi (Abu Dhabi)
The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation ruled, in a case of a commercial dispute between a divorced woman and her ex-husband, to reject the complainant’s request, and obliged her to pay an amount of half a million dirhams, due to the presence of documents proving that the check issued by her ex-husband, and if it was not written in her name, it was issued as the price of the property that was purchased for her. And that the first witness, who is the husband’s brother, decided that the complainant had admitted before him that the amount paid by her ex-husband was only 700,000 dirhams for the purchase of the property.
A complainant (divorced) had filed a lawsuit against her ex-husband, in exchange for borrowing one million and 200 thousand dirhams from her ex-husband (the debtor), as he wrote a check in favor of – the representative of the company selling the property – for an amount of one million and 200 thousand dirhams, the value of the property subject of the lawsuit sold to the complainant, She also (the complainant) transferred 500 thousand dirhams into her ex-husband’s account, and he completed the price with the amount in question.
The court clarified that what the complainant faults in relying on the aforementioned text, whatever the point of view on it, is unproductive and unacceptable, and that what she complains about the seller’s failure to return the price of the sale in full, as the result of that is that the appealed ruling concluded that the complainant borrowed the amount spent From her ex-husband, therefore, her recovery of only part of the price of the sale from the company has no effect on her obligation to return the borrowed amount when requested by its owner, and her claim of that is unfounded.
Likewise, what I adhered to regarding the inadmissibility of proof by the testimony of witnesses is rejected, because the appealed judgment rejected it as stipulated in Article 37 of the Evidence Law, which permitted the court, for valid reasons, to allow proof by testimony and that the two parties to the litigation had a marital relationship that was severed by what It is done by the moral impediment, and therefore this obituary is unacceptable, in addition to what the complainant claims that the amount is in fact a gift during the marital relationship between them and not a loan and that her ex-husband is incompetent, is considered inaccurate, due to the lack of sufficient reasons.
In view of the aforementioned, the court decided to reject the complainant’s request, and obligated her to pay the remaining sums of money, explaining that it is nothing more than a controversy over the discretionary power of the trial court in evaluating the evidence and balancing them, and it cannot be raised before this court, which is why the appeal must not be accepted in its entirety.
1682373925
#divorce #disputed #thousand #dirhams