UAE court rejects dad's demand of Dh500,000 from 3 sons for raising them

The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation has rejected  a father’s plea to compel his three sons to pay him Dh500,000 that he had spent to raise and educate them, the Arabic newspaper ‘Al Bayan’ has reported.

In its ruling, the Court pointed out the three youths had no jobs and no income and thus unable to support themselves during the years when they were at different stages of their education.

The Court also noted that it was illegal for the three sons to work in the UAE when they were under the sponsorship of their father during their student days.

The children had told the Court that they are unable to pay their father half a million dirhams because, being fresh graduates, their monthly incomes totaled Dh9,000 only.

The father had filed a lawsuit before the Court accusing his children of disobedience and lack of responsibility. 

The plaintiff said his grown-up children are living with him without having to pay anything to him despite having jobs and cars.

However, the defendants told the Court that the plaintiff had not been a responsible father to them for many years.

The sons claimed that their late elder brother had looked after the family from an early age after their father abandoned them and their mother.

The three defendants presented to the Court documents showing that their house was taken on rent by their late brother.

They also submitted to the Court papers showing payment of their school tuition fees by their elder brother. They said their older brother had died ten years ago when he was still in the prime of his youth, leaving behind the three brothers without any income, resulting in a debt burden of unpaid house rent, electricity bills and school fees on them.

The brothers told the court that they were recently compelled to vacate their house though they were heirs of their elder brother who was the original tenant.

They also confirmed a verdict ordering them to pay arrears of house rent for 10 years at Dh24,000 per year and overdue and water and electricity bills.

The three young defendants did not deny that they had agreed with their father years ago to pay 70 per cent of household expenses but claimed that they were forced to sign that agreement.

They added that when their eldest brother died, their father had wanted to expel them and their mother from the house, considering the house to be his deceased son’s inheritance in which he had a one-third share as per Sharia law.

The brothers claimed that the father would pay only one-third of the rent and expenses on food and drink while the remainder had to be paid by the three siblings and their mother or be forced to leave the house.

They said they did not have any choice but to sign the agreement in front of the family counselor or risk being thrown out into the street.

They stressed that they have not been able to find work because of lack of education while their father was employed and had an income.

They said their father used to travel often and used the house to store merchandise imported from his country.

They also claimed that, despite having properties worth millions of dirhams, their father did not spend money on them or their younger siblings. They also said they are currently paying school fees of their younger siblings and submitted letters sent by the schools to support their claim.

They also presented other papers seeking exemption from school fees in previous years as well as warnings from schools that their siblings would be barred in future for non-payment of tuition fees.

Earlier, the Court of Appeal had issued a verdict ordering the young men to pay Dh200,000 as their share of house rent and water and electricity bills.

But the Court refused to compel them to pay their share of expenses on food and drink due to the lack of documents.

The Court of Cassation has now rejected the verdict of the Court of Appealon the grounds that the lower court did not take into account the young age of the children and the fact that they lived in the UAE under their father’s sponsorship.

Pointing out also that the agreement signed between the two parties was not attested and that the salary certificates of the sons presented by the father showed that they were newly enrolled, the Court of Cassation returned the case to the Court of Appeal. (end)

 

Follow Emirates 24|7 on Google News.