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.