The cost of foster care housing is conditional on the mother not owning housing

In the merits of a recent ruling, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that the father’s obligation to pay housing rent for the children in the mother’s custody is conditional on the mother not having housing that she owns or that is allocated to her, according to the text of Article 148 of the Personal Status Law, as the court ruled to accept a husband’s appeal related to his obligation to pay 40 thousand dirhams annually as housing rent for the custody of his children. It ruled to amend this part of the ruling and cancel the housing allowance imposed on the husband.

The wife had filed a legal lawsuit before the Sharjah Court, requesting at its conclusion to separate her from the husband on grounds of harm and abandonment, while obliging him to pay her current and previous spousal support for the past two years, alimony for pleasure, a deferred dowry, housing rent, and maintenance for a custody set for four children, and a nursery residence. The fee for a maid, a nursery fee, and his obligation to pay one of them’s tuition fees amounting to 21 thousand dirhams.

The court of first instance ruled to separate them with an irrevocable divorce due to desertion and harm, and it is not permissible for him except with a new dowry and contract. It also ruled that the defendant be obligated to pay 1,000 dirhams per month as maintenance to the wife from the date of her submission of the application, and obligating him to pay a deferred dowry of 20 thousand dirhams, 2000 dirhams as maintenance for the waiting period, and housing maintenance for The period of waiting period that she will serve following this divorce, and extending the age of custody of the young girl with The wife until the age of marriage, and the age of custody of the young child was extended until the age of puberty. The court also ruled for her to have custody of the other two children, obliging the father to pay 1,000 dirhams per month to each of the custodians, 40 thousand dirhams annually as a nursery housing fee, and 500 dirhams as a nursery fee paid to the mother, while The court rejected the mother’s request for a maid’s salary, rejected the tuition fee request, and rejected the rest of the requests. On appeal, the court ruled to amend the housing amount to 30,000 dirhams instead of 40,000 dirhams, which prompted the husband to appeal the ruling before the Federal Supreme Court.

The husband said in his reasons for his appeal that the ruling made a mistake in applying the law, and was marred by corruption in reasoning, as it awarded the wife the rent for foster care, despite her ownership of her own residence, contrary to Article 148 of the Personal Status Law, which the court agreed with, because the second paragraph of The article stipulates that “whoever is obligated to support the child in custody must pay the rent for his custodian’s residence unless the custodian owns a residence in which she resides or is allocated for her residence,” and since the papers prove that The wife resides in a residence owned by her, according to her declaration, and thus the father is not obligated to provide housing for his children who are in her custody.

With regard to the husband’s private complaint that the ruling issued against him erred in applying the law because he relied on the auditory testimony of witnesses only when he ruled to divorce the wife irrevocably for lack of maintenance and desertion, the court said that “this claim is incorrect, because the trial court has full authority to obtain an understanding of the reality in The case, weighing its evidence, giving preference to what you are comfortable with, taking into account the testimony of witnesses and evaluating it, and it is not obligated to respond to everything presented by the parties.”

The court added that Article 117 of the Personal Status Law stipulates that “each of the spouses has the right to request a divorce due to harm that makes it impossible for them to continue living together.” Thus, the contested ruling concluded that there was harm that made living together impossible, and that marital life had become impossible.