Abu Dhabi: The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Court ruled that a husband must pay his wife Dh300,000, the value of a debt he acknowledged in a promissory note, after she bore the expenses of living, rent and the expenses of their two daughters during his years of financial incapacity, stressing that his signature on the acknowledgment entails its legal consequences, and he may not evade the obligation without evidence proving his claim of coercion.
In detail, a woman filed a lawsuit against her husband, demanding that he be obligated to pay her Dh300,000, the value of the debt established by a promissory note signed by him, with the obligation to pay the fees, expenses and attorney’s fees.
She explained that during the period from 2014 until mid-2020, her husband did not have sufficient financial resources to meet the family's living expenses, which forced her to bear those expenses, including rent and the expenses of their two daughters, until the total amount she incurred reached Dh300,000.
She indicated that her husband had issued her a promissory note in which, he acknowledged his obligation to pay the amount, but he refused to pay without justification.
In response, the husband submitted a memorandum requesting that the lawsuit be dismissed, and as a precaution, that an accounting expert be appointed to examine the disputed debt. He attached to his memorandum documents that included a bank statement, which the court reviewed.
For its part, the court explained in the reasoning of its ruling that an admission is informing a person of a right established against him for the benefit of another, and it is considered a judicial admission when the opponent admits before the court, directly or through one of the means of remote communication, a legal fact alleged against him.
It pointed out that the wife filed her lawsuit based on a customary document which she described as a promissory note, signed by her husband, and which included the reasons for the debt being claimed.
The court explained that the amount claimed represents personal expenses incurred by the wife, in addition to paying rent and the expenses of their two daughters, which are items that fall under the concept of maintenance in its various forms, including housing and children’s expenses, and the responsibility for fulfilling them falls on the husband.
It stressed that the argument about whether the husband actually received the amount is pointless, given that the reasons for the obligation to incur this debt are primarily his responsibility, which transfers to him the burden of proving the fulfilment or expiry of those obligations.
The court noted that the case file lacked evidence to support the husband’s claim that he was subjected to moral coercion when writing the declaration, pointing out that there was no need to examine the fact that he received the amount, as long as the customary document bearing his signature was sufficient to prove that he was liable for the value of the debt, according to what was stated in it.
It stressed that the husband’s signature on the declaration has legal consequences and does not allow him to evade the obligations established by it, especially since the claim of moral coercion is not valid without providing evidence to prove its validity, which is lacking in the case file.
The court concluded that the wife’s request was valid and in accordance with the law, and ruled that the husband must pay her Dh300,000, in addition to the fees and expenses.