The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Court has mandated that a woman reimburse her ex-husband an amount of 542,082 dirhams, which was determined to be in excess of the alimony and payments she was entitled to receive.

The ruling comes as part of a case initiated by the man, who sought the repayment based on an earlier court decision that set specific amounts for alimony.

In presenting his case, the plaintiff argued that the defendant had received funds exceeding the judicially established amount and had refused to return the surplus after being requested to do so.

He included supporting documentation, including a revised regulatory filing and previous judgments related to his claims and those of the bank involved in the dispute, which were accepted by the court for review.

The defense attorney submitted a counter statement arguing against the admissibility of the case, asserting that it had already been adjudicated, contesting the court's jurisdiction over the matter, and claiming that the statute of limitations should preclude the claims.

They requested a dismissal of the case along with associated legal fees.

The court ruled against the argument that the case should not be heard due to prior adjudication, clarifying that the records indicate no final judgment had been made that resolved the dispute.

Therefore, the court deemed this defense unfounded.

Furthermore, the court rejected assertions relating to jurisdictional insufficiencies, citing that the plaintiff’s claim was based on general legal principles rather than specific family law provisions, thus allowing for the case to proceed.

Concerning the statute of limitations cited by the defense, the court referenced Article 298 of the Civil Transactions Law, noting that the shortened limitation period applies solely to tort claims, which do not pertain to the recovery of unjust enrichment.

In response to the plaintiff's request for the reimbursement of the excess amount awarded to the defendant, the court reiterated that, according to established civil law, no individual may retain another's property without a legitimate reason, and if they do, they are obligated to return it.

The court found sufficient evidence indicating that the defendant had indeed received more than she was entitled to and failed to demonstrate compliance with the court's orders regarding the repayment of the funds.

The court's ruling ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff 542,082 dirhams along with related legal fees while dismissing other requests made in the case.