Ras Al Khaimah court grants mother second divorce in eight months and custody of 10 children

Ras Al Khaimah: The Ras Al Khaimah Primary Court has granted a 43-year-old woman a second divorce from her husband in eight months, after the couple had reunited under a new marriage contract. Their renewed marriage lasted only two months before the woman returned to court. The court also confirmed her custody of their 10 children and ordered the father to pay periodic financial obligations totalling Dh227,500 a year. According to the lawsuit, the mother left her job as a teacher to devote herself to raising her 10 children, as well as five of her husband’s children from a previous marriage. She said she had cared for a total of 15 children during their 12-year marriage. The case followed a series of marital disputes that led the mother to seek legal separation twice. She obtained her first divorce ruling in February before returning to her husband in May under a new marriage contract. She filed a second lawsuit in July, seeking divorce, custody of the children and financial support after stating that the disputes that had led to their first separation had resurfaced. Her husband opposed the divorce and sought custody of their 10 children. Court documents showed that the couple have five sons and five daughters. The wife said she had also cared for five of her husband’s children from a previous marriage and had left teaching to look after the children and manage the household. The woman had previously filed a case seeking to end the marriage and was granted a final divorce by khula in February. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling in April, and the khula was officially documented on May 14. However, the couple resumed married life the following day under a new marriage contract, which set both the immediate and deferred dowry at Dh5,000. The reunion lasted only two months. On July 15, the wife filed another lawsuit seeking divorce by khula, saying that continuing the marriage had become impossible. In her lawsuit, she alleged that her husband mistreated her and the children and failed to provide adequate financial support despite having the means to do so. She also alleged that he refused to cover the cost of her medical treatment, had taken money from her unfairly while she worked as a teacher, and prevented her from visiting her mother and other family members. She further alleged that he treated her harshly in front of the children and said their continuing disputes had made married life untenable. She sought a divorce, confirmation of her custody of the children and an order requiring their father to meet their living and educational expenses. The husband, however, told the court that he wanted the marriage to continue, pointing out that the couple had 10 children. He also submitted a salary certificate and other documents in support of his position. He acknowledged that he had not paid his wife the immediate dowry, saying this had been agreed between them. The wife maintained her request for divorce in return for waiving the financial rights arising from the separation. During proceedings, the husband filed a counterclaim seeking custody of the 10 children. He also asked for a specialised technical body to examine evidence and electronic conversations submitted in the case, verify their authenticity and refer any material he considered suspicious to the Public Prosecution. The court said it did not rely on the disputed electronic documents when reaching its decision. It therefore rejected his requests for the evidence to be examined and referred to the Public Prosecution, finding that doing so would not affect the outcome. The court also attempted to reconcile the couple, but those efforts were unsuccessful. The wife maintained that she wanted a divorce and did not wish to continue the marriage, saying she feared she would be unable to uphold God’s limits if the relationship continued. In its ruling, the court said reconciliation attempts had failed and that the marital relationship had reached a level of apathy and emotional distance that made its continuation impossible, particularly given the wife’s insistence on ending the marriage and her willingness to relinquish her legitimate financial rights in return for divorce. The court considered the husband’s refusal to agree to the divorce, despite the wife offering an appropriate alternative, to constitute obstinacy. It granted her a final divorce by khula in return for waiving her legitimate financial rights, previous spousal maintenance and deferred dowry. However, the court stressed that the children’s financial rights are separate from marital rights and that maintenance or custody rights cannot be waived in exchange for divorce under the Personal Status Law. On custody, the court relied on a report from the Technical Committee for Custody Affairs, which found no impediment to the mother retaining custody. The case documents also contained nothing that undermined her eligibility to care for the children. The court said the mother’s priority in cu