Background:

Cassation Number: 63/2026

The dispute involved the appellant/husband, and the respondent/wife. The parties were formerly married and have two sons. Their divorce in 2019 was followed by a number of settlement agreements. By 2020, the appellant had agreed to pay AED 9,000 per month by way of child support, to cover all basic needs except housing, as well as school and medical expenses.

Court of First Instance:

In 2025 the appellant initiated proceedings for a substantial reduction of his monthly payment obligation, in essence basing his claim on the following arguments:

His monthly salary was heavily burdened with pension deductions.
A prior alimony obligation for a daughter from another marriage.
A significant bank loan repayment.

He remarried late in 2022 and said his obligation to his new wife and potential future children made the existing AED 9,000 payment unaffordable.

He said the respondent/wife was receiving significant social support from Community Development Authority (CDA) and Ministry of Community Development as their son is a Person of Determination. He contended this assistance should offset his personal obligation.

Against which the respondent/wife filed a counter-claim, requesting:

A housing allowance.
Custody fees
Coverage of transportation and utility bills.

She argued that the appellant’s income was much higher than reported, alleging he held multiple positions in different entities.

The Court of First Instance had thoroughly investigated the financial reality of the appellant and found the following:

1. The court found the proof of the appellant working part-time with an additional income of AED 6,500 monthly.

2. The court observed that the appellant’s “financial distress” was of his own making. He chose to remarry with a large dowry and undertook an annual rent for his new home, despite being aware of his existing legal obligations.

3. The court clarified that the social assistance for Persons of Determination is intended to cover the extraordinary medical and rehabilitation needs related to the child’s condition, and is not intended to replace the father’s legal obligation to provide basic maintenance and housing.

4. Surprisingly, the court viewed the appellant’s large bank loans as a sign of “solvency” (Yasar), not poverty, because banks do not offer such credit limits to those without substantial means.

Judgment:

On May 2025 the court First Instance decided the following:

Rejected the appellant’s/husband’s request to reduce the alimony.
Awarded the respondent/wife a custody fee and annual housing allowance (inclusive of utilities).

Appeal Court:

Both parties appealed the ruling. The appellant/husband argued that the lower court disregarded his “obvious” insolvency while the respondent/wife sought more housing and custody fees.

Judgement:

The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It found that the lower courts had acted within their discretion and that their findings were supported by “sound reasons with a firm basis in the documents.” The appellant was ordered to pay all costs and his security deposit was forfeited.

Conclusion

The ruling of the Cassation Appeal stresses the UAE Personal Status Law’s protective approach to children. It sends a clear message; settlement agreements are binding contracts that cannot be easily circumvented through self-imposed financial burdens. A father’s obligation to his existing children takes legal precedence over voluntary financial commitments made for a second marriage. Courts don’t just look at “salary certificates.” They look at bank credit, utility bills, dowry payments, and lifestyle to determine the real wealth of a person. Government grants for disabled children are a social safety net for specialized care, not an escape for the father from his fundamental duty to provide a home and basic necessities. This decision ensures that as children mature and their needs become more complex, the law will continue to protect their welfare, preventing providers from using technicalities to avoid their moral and legal obligations.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why was the court not willing to reduce the maintenance payments in this case?

The court found that the maintenance paying parent had not suffered any significant financial hardship, his income had not decreased but had remained the same or had increased and that any additional financial obligations he had taken on had been of his own choosing. The court found that there were no valid reasons to reduce the previously established maintenance payments in the absence of any substantial change in his financial circumstances.

2. Can people on social benefits such as disability or welfare escape from paying the full amount of maintenance?

No. If a parent is getting disability or other social benefits, this does not mean they don’t have to pay full maintenance for their child. The obligation to meet the needs of the child exists independently of any social benefits they may be getting. These social benefits are intended to supplement income and not to replace or decrease a parent’s duty to provide for their child financially.

3. May courts deviate from the guideline tables in determining amounts of child support maintenance?

Yes, courts can deviate from the standard guideline tables when the facts of a case warrant such a situation. The tables are a guide and not a rule. Judges have a discretion to vary the level of maintenance according to the circumstances, the evidence and the needs of the parties to achieve a fair result.

4. What is meant by the term ‘concealed income’ in maintenance and child support cases?

‘Concealed income’ means any portion of a person’s income which is not disclosed to the court or the other party in maintenance proceedings. It may be hiding income, under reporting income or not declaring sources of money. Hiding income is a serious problem because it can affect the fairness and accuracy of the maintenance calculations.

5. Does the second remarriage constitute a valid reason for reducing previously ordered maintenance?

No, a person’s remarriage does not constitute a legal reason to lower any existing child support or maintenance obligations. The remarriage of a person is a voluntary act and shall not affect such person’s obligation to continue to support his or her children in accordance with previous agreements or court orders. The duty to pay maintenance is not affected by remarriage. The Court considered the following types of evidence: The current support agreement; The ongoing educational needs of the child; The contractual obligation of the parent to provide educational support; Any significant change in circumstances that would justify modifying the support arrangement; The terms of the original agreement and the conditions under which it was entered into; The financial situation of the parent to ascertain ability to pay; The best interests of the child. The Court’s decision was reached after a detailed review of the official financial accounts and prior statements of the parties involved, and a comprehensive examination of the financial records available, so the Court was thoroughly informed of the actual financial position prior to any determination being made with respect to the maintenance payments.

6. If someone’s income really dropped what would happen to maintenance payments?

Under Article 97, the Court would have the power to review a reduction in maintenance payments if there was a proven significant fall in income, supported by relevant documentary evidence. The Court would need to be provided with credible documentation proving a genuine fall in income before any change could be made. In the absence of such evidence, it would be normal for maintenance obligations to remain the same.