The Abu Dhabi Court for Family, Civil and Administrative Claims upheld a ruling by the Court of First Instance that obligated a woman to pay her ex-husband an amount of 10,000 dirhams in compensation for the moral damages he suffered for insulting him through WhatsApp messages.
In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against his ex-wife, demanding that she pay him an amount of 150,000 dirhams, in compensation for the material, moral and moral damage he suffered, and obligating her to pay fees and expenses and in exchange for legal fees, indicating that she insulted and slandered him through the application of “WhatsApp”, and she was convicted according to a ruling. penal.
A court of first degree ordered the defendant to pay 10,000 dirhams to the plaintiff, and obligated her to pay fees, expenses, and attorney’s fees.
The defendant did not accept this court, so she filed her appeal, and demanded that the case be dismissed because it was filed prematurely and for lack of proof, and that the appellant be obligated to pay the expenses and attorney’s fees.
It called the appealed judgment the error in applying the law and the corruption in the inference, and the judiciary other than what was established in the papers for reasons that resulted in an overestimation of the compensation, and that the act of the convicted appellant was a matter of legal defense, in addition to the fact that the ruling of its first-degree court charged her with the full lawsuit fees despite not having spent what he estimated. The defendant received compensation, and provided copies of judgments issued by the Personal Status Departments and photos of WhatsApp conversations.
For its part, the Court of Appeal indicated that the Court of First Instance was subject to a ruling in the present dispute, and that the proven criminal rulings are that the appellant insulted the appellant through “WhatsApp” messages. due to the fault of the defendant; Sufficient amount of 10 thousand dirhams, and the appellant did not come up with a new defense that changes the view of the case, and what came in her obituary does not affect the appealed judgment that the estimated estimate is exaggerated, nor does it affect the appellant’s claim that she was in a state of legitimate defense due to the absence of the criminal judgment that Prove her wrong from that, which is the matter with which the court of first instance has examined the evidence presented to reach the conclusion that it ruled.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that, according to its discretionary authority, it considers in the judgment decided by the Court of First Instance sufficient compensation for the moral damages incurred, and ruled to accept the appeal in form, and in the matter to uphold the appealed ruling.
• The appellant demanded that the case be dismissed because it was filed prematurely and for lack of proof, and that the appellant be obligated to pay the expenses and attorney’s fees.
