A recent case in Sharjah has brought attention to the complexities of marital law in the UAE.

An Arab husband initiated divorce proceedings against his wife, citing domestic abuse as the reason for the dissolution of their marriage, which had lasted several years and produced three daughters.

The case was adjudicated in the Personal Status Court, which ultimately ruled in favor of the husband, granting him a divorce on the grounds of harm caused by his wife.

The initial ruling from the primary court mandated further obligations for the husband, including child support and housing arrangements for the daughters, as well as the payment of outstanding dowry and expenses for a caretaker.

However, the court dismissed the wife's claims for post-divorce maintenance, known as 'mut'a', as well as requests for household furnishings and annual travel expenses for the children.

Dissatisfied with the first ruling, the wife appealed the decision.

The Appeals Court granted her appeal, reversing the denial of her claim for maintenance and ordering the husband to provide a specified amount as 'mut'a'.

This latest ruling was subsequently challenged by the husband before the Federal Supreme Court.

He argued that his divorce on the grounds of harm negated her entitlement to 'mut'a' under relevant family law provisions.

The husband's legal representative, Dr. Alaa Nasr, referenced specific legal texts detailing that if a husband voluntarily divorces a wife after a valid marriage without her request, she is entitled to 'mut'a' based on the husband's financial standing, up to the limit of one year's maintenance for similar marriages.

The legal stipulation indicates that ‘mut'a’ is contingent upon the husband initiating the divorce unilaterally and without the wife’s request.

Therefore, a wife who is divorced under conditions of harm or fault cannot claim this type of financial support.

Dr. Nasr further explained that the law allows husbands to unilaterally initiate a divorce in cases of harm or discord.

However, the legislation also ensures that husbands can pursue divorce claims for harm, thereby preventing wives from exploiting domestic strife as leverage to compel divorce without due financial considerations.

The implications of this legal structure are significant, as it affords husbands some relief from potential financial liabilities in cases where they can substantiate claims of marital abuse.

In his appeal, the husband stated that the prior court’s failure to consider the legitimate grounds for his challenge to the maintenance ruling constituted a legal misstep, leading the Federal Supreme Court to recognize the validity of his claims.

As a result, the court indicated that it would review the prior rulings and assess the application of the law in this context.