State courts are concerned with personal status cases for residents

The Federal Supreme Court endorsed an appeal presented by an absolute woman (of the nationality of an Arab state), against a ruling that ruled that the state courts are not competent to consider its case against its absolute, to support a previous agreement between them to refer any dispute to the Sharia courts in their country, explaining in the reasons for its ruling that «courts The state is specialized in looking at everything related to the issues of personal status of resident foreigners.

In the details, a divorced woman filed a lawsuit against her divorced woman, in which she said that she had two daughters, and refrained from spending on them, demanding that he be obligated to alimony for their two daughters, and two wages are an incubator and a residence for her and his furnishing, and a transfer allowance, contact fees, study, treatment expenses, health insurance, travel tickets, festive expenses and activities And regeneration of the passengers.

The defendant, in front of the first instance court, did not jurisdiction locally in the consideration of the lawsuit, because there is an agreement with his divorcee before the Sharia court in their country in September 2012, on a system for custody of their two daughters, and the sharing of all types of alimony between them, then the agreement was amended in 2013 in the same court, Provided that the jurisdiction to resolve disputes related to custody of the judicial system in their country.

The first instance court ruled that the case should not be heard, and the plaintiff included the claim of the case, but it filed an appeal, and the Court of Appeal ruled to amend the first ruling so that the court’s lack of jurisdiction would be a state of state in the consideration of the case.

The plaintiff was not satisfied with the ruling, and she appealed against him before the Federal Supreme Court, and the Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum in which it delegated the court to the court.

The prosecutor said that “the ruling violated the law, and made a mistake in its application, as he ruled that the court is not competent in a state based on the agreement concluded with its absolute, despite its abolition of its non -renewal between them, what has become with him is not, and without realizing that the jurisdiction in the consideration of the lawsuit is due to the state courts, as long as the matter is It relates to an issue of personal status that is raised on citizens and foreigners who have a home, residence or workplace in the state, which is available on both sides, and if the ruling violates this consideration, it is tainted with the violation of the law, and it must be vetoed.

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, stressing that “the basic principle in the state jurisdiction is that it is held for the court in which the defendant’s home is located, or his place of residence, or his work in accordance with the requirements of the ninth article in its first paragraph of the Personal Status Law, and that Articles 20 and 21/ 5 of the Civil Procedure Law, stipulated that “the courts are concerned with looking at the lawsuit against the foreigner who has a home or residence in the state.”

She added that Article 21/5 of the same law stipulates that “the courts are concerned with looking at the lawsuit against the foreigner who has no home or residence in the event that the lawsuit is related to the expense of one of the parents, a wife, a veil, or the small interdicted, or the state over money or The soul, if the student of alimony, wife, young, or interdicled, has a home in the state.

She pointed out that «showing the papers that the two parties to the case are residing in the state, and the lawsuit is presented with the aim of judging the defendant with expenditures arising from his consequences as a result of the violation of his commitment to pay the expense of his two daughters, and therefore the state jurisdiction is held to the courts of the legitimate state, and this does not obtain what the parties agreed before The Sharia Court in their country, in which they agreed to present the dispute related to the custody without expenditures, and therefore it does not take away the jurisdiction of the state courts, which have the right to decide on everything related to the issues of personal status of foreigners residing in it, but rather authorized them to implement their national law if they hold on to it as a job In Article (2) of the Personal Status Law, and if the ruling of the state’s lack of jurisdiction to the court ruled, he would have violated the law, which is what must be vetoed, provided that it is with the referral to be pursuant to Article 13 of the Personal Status Law.