Background:
In 2025, the husband filed a petition with the Dubai Personal Status Court. He requested to divorce with his wife on harm and visitation rights for his 8-year-old daughter. Such as a weekly visitation schedule, including overnight stays from Friday evening through Sunday evening, time on her birthday, half of all school holidays, and the first day of official holidays such as Eid and national day.
Additionally, he sought daily communication via phone and video calls, requested a court order obligating the wife to hand over the child's passport and other important documents, and applied to be formally recognized as the child's educational guardian.
The wife filed a counterclaim seeking divorce on the grounds of harm and requested that the husband pay the deferred dowry, spousal and child maintenance, childcare expenses, tuition fees, utility bills, transportation costs, driver's and maid's salaries, and other necessary living expenses.
Court of First Instance findings:
The court issued the following rulings: firstly, to dissolve the marriage by way of a first and irrevocable divorce. The wife is required to observe the statutory waiting period. During this interval, the husband retains the right to unilaterally reconcile by verbal (I take you back) or actions and restore the marital relationship—without need for a new contract and dowry, or the wife’s consent, provided that such reconciliation is formally registered before the competent court within fifteen days of its occurrence. Secondly, the wife is ordered to permit the husband access to his daughter under terms and conditions determined to be suitable by the court. and the rest of the requests were rejected.
Court of Appeal findings:
The husband lodged an appeal challenging the initial judgment and opposed the counterclaim as legally invalid and without merit. Following an unsuccessful attempt by the appellate court to facilitate reconciliation between the parties, it ruled to modify the contested judgment in relation to visitation and custody arrangements during Eid, as well as the prescribed timetable for telephonic and electronic communication. And the court upheld the other requests.
Court of Cassation findings:
The husband was not satisfied with the decision and appealed cassation (No. 692/2025) to have it annulled. His issue is the refusal of the court to provide overnight visits during the public holidays and the birthday of his daughter. He argues that this ruling is not only legally flawed but also against the best interests of the child considering their strong relationship and his hiring of a nanny to take care of the child overnight so that they could spend quality time together than just visiting them every now and then.
The appeal deals with the parental rights and judicial discretion. Although the law provides both parents the right of contact that protects the interests of the child, and allows the non-custodial parent to stay overnight with the child provided it is beneficial, the exact arrangements of the visitation are factual decisions. These are within the sound discretion of the trial court and cannot be subject to classification review, as long as they have backing in reasoning which is apparent through the record of the case. Thus, the challenge to the ruling based on this is unjustified.
The husband challenged the wife in the deferred dowry of AED 10,000 that was agreed upon in the marriage contract saying that he had already fulfilled this requirement by remitting AED 47,000 to her to invest in cryptocurrency. He differentiated this amount with another payment of AED 100,000 that he admitted was a personal gift that was paid to alleviate tensions between them in a dispute. He argued that were the AED 47,000 to be a gift, he would have clearly declared this to be a gift.
The court found the husband's assertion that the AED 47,000 transfer constituted payment of the dowry to be illogical, as the sum far exceeded the amount specified in the marriage contract. This transfer was thus reasoned to be not settlement of the deferred dowry. As a result, the fact that the husband was obligated to pay dowry did not nullify the legal obligation and therefore the wife could claim and the court had to decide on the matter.
The court ruled in favor of the wife who was entitled to the deferred dowry as stipulated in the marriage contract since the amount was recorded, legal and not contradicted by the evidence. The court determined that the appeal was not meritorious as it had dealt and dismissed all the arguments presented in the appeal.
In view of the foregoing, the appeal must be dismissed.
Finally, this case confirms once again that trial courts have extensive discretion in deciding the visitation plan according to the best interests of the child, which is a factual determination that cannot be reviewed under the classification. It also highlights that contractual requirement, including a specified dowry, are legally binding unless they are clearly demonstrated to be non-existent based on clear and consistent evidence. Since no such evidence was provided and the rationale of the lower courts was reasonable, the cassation appeal was rejected.