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.