In a remarkable legal case, a man in Dubai has sought to reclaim an astonishing sum of 35.7 million dirhams from his wife, alleging she unlawfully seized these funds related to property units. This contentious dispute reached the Dubai Civil Court, where the judge ultimately dismissed the claim, underlining the significance of the decisive oath that resolved the matter in favor of the wife.
The Court Case Unfolds
The plaintiff initiated legal proceedings against his wife, demanding the return of 35.7 million dirhams, which he claimed were funds he invested in real estate units purchased with his own money. He contended that the properties were registered in her name as a form of trust, with the understanding that his wife would either return the units or transfer ownership back to him when prompted. According to his claims, she failed to uphold this agreement.
Claims for Compensation
In addition to the 35.7 million dirhams, the man sought 20 million dirhams in compensation for alleged physical and emotional damages, coupled with legal interest on the amount due. The plaintiff asserted that an agreement existed between him and his wife, bolstered by text messages exchanged on WhatsApp and a written acknowledgment indicating that the properties were held in her name solely for safekeeping with the promise of future return.
Wife’s Defense and Examination Details
The wife, however, denied the claims, stating that she purchased the properties with her own funds and challenged the validity of the written acknowledgment presented by her husband. During the court proceedings, the judge decided to send the written acknowledgment for forensic examination, but the original document was not presented, as the husband’s legal representative alleged that it was stolen by the wife. Instead, they insisted that messages exchanged between the couple serve as evidence.
The Decisive Oath and Court’s Ruling
Unable to substantiate his claims with evidence, the plaintiff resorted to invoking the decisive oath, a legal practice used to resolve disputes when evidence is lacking. The court instructed the wife to swear an oath affirming that the real estate units in question belonged to her and were not held in trust.
During the final hearing, the wife testified under oath, denying ever signing the acknowledgment and reaffirming her ownership of the properties, purchased with her own money. The court clarified that the decisive oath serves as a unique tool for resolving disputes, and once invoked, it retracts other evidentiary methods. The court emphasized that swearing or declining to do so definitively settles the dispute regarding the matter at hand.
The court concluded that the wife’s decisive oath established her ownership of the real estate units, negating the husband’s claim that she held them in trust. As a result, the court ruled that there was no fault on the wife’s part, leading to the dismissal of all the plaintiff’s demands and imposing the legal costs and attorney fees on him.
“Swearing or declining to do so definitively settles the matter at hand, and the content is binding,” highlighted the court in its ruling.