Background: The litigation involved the appellant/father, and the respondent/mother. The parties were previously married and have two children. Following a referral from family counselling the father filed Case in Court of first instance. His primary requests to the court were:

1. Termination of alimony previously imposed.

2. Reduction of alimony to a minimal amount should termination be denied.

3. Transfer of costs, including attorney fees, to the respondent.

The father/appellant’s argument was that he suffered from a chronic, incurable illness that rendering him completely immobile and unable to seek employment. He stated that he has no social assistance from the Ministry. The appellant/father alleged that the respondent mother has a stable financial position, noting her monthly salary of AED 23,000. The maintenance obligations imposed by the court in 2022 can no longer be fulfilled in these new circumstances, he said.

First Instance Court

The Court of First Instance looked at the petition focusing on the legal standing of the parties and the age of the children. Under UAE law, the right to claim alimony on behalf of a child is usually held by the custodian (usually the mother) until the child reaches a certain legal threshold.

The court found that one of the children, had turned 18 years old by the time the lawsuit reached the trial stage. This is a critical legal milestone. Once a child reaches the age of majority or the age where they are deemed to have legal capacity in personal status matters, the mother no longer holds the standing to represent that child in court.

Regarding the younger son the court looked at the father’s claims of total disability against the child’s right to support. The court noted that the appellant failed to provide a compelling legal basis that would shift the entire burden of support away from the father, despite his health claims.

In September 2025 the Court of First Instance issued its judgment

1. The requests concerning 18-year-old were dismissed because the suit was brought against the mother who was no longer the legal representative of an adult daughter.

2. The request to reduce minor son’s support was rejected.

Court of Appeal

Dissatisfied with the decision of the First court, the appellant/father filed an appeal. He said the first court ignored his medical documentation and his volunteer status for “Year of Community Service”, which he said proved his lack of income.

The Court of Appeal looked into the broader financial life of the appellant. It reviewed previous judicial records between the same parties. The court discovered a pattern of “repetitive pleading.” The appellant had previously claimed he was unemployed and receiving assistance from brothers, yet those courts had already found that he:

1. Owned real estate properties.

2. Held another private residence.

3. Owns a company

A pivotal issue on appeal was a report by the Family Guidance department. It was found that when an official of that department called a number associated with the appellant, the person who answered identified himself as an employee of the appellant’s company. This was in direct contravention of the appellant’s claim that he was a destitute person with no business interests whatsoever. The Court of Appeal upheld the original judgment. It held that the appellant’s circumstances had not undergone a substantial change that would warrant a reduction in alimony. It found his claims of total poverty to be non-credible given his lifestyle and asset ownership.

Court of Cassation

The appellant filed an appeal in the Cassation Court.

The Appellant argued that the lower courts erred in dismissing his claims against the basis of standing. The Court of Cassation rejected this. It said that the verification of the legal capacity of litigants is a matter of public order. Since elder child was 18 years of age, she was entitled to sue or be sued in her own name. By suing the mother for the alimony of the daughter, the appellant committed a procedural error which the court was obliged to correct ex officio.

Incapacity

The core of the Cassation Court’s reasoning addressed the appellant’s health. The court established a powerful legal principle: Physical disability is not a synonym for financial incapacity.

The cassation court observed that under Article 106 (1), the father is responsible for maintenance of the minor child until the daughter is married or the son is able to earn his livelihood. The court found the arguments placed by the appellant as contradictory. He claimed to be immobile and poor and yet managed the financial dealings of two families and several other dependants. The court further stated that the assets produce income. Ownership of immovable properties and a company is a financial resource irrespective of the physical mobility of the owner. While alimony orders can be modified if there is a change in circumstances (Article 97), the change must be real and proved. Here, the change (the disability) did not remove the assets.

The court noted that the current AED 2,000 monthly alimony was already insufficient to cover the cost of living for a child in Dubai.

In line with the above the Court of Cassation decided to

Dismiss the appeal in full.

Conclusion:

This judgment confirms the strict standards followed by Dubai Court in alimony claims. Uphold the father’s obligation of maintenance. The case’s end brings out a few important legal lessons. The courts will look behind the curtain of on-paper poverty claims if the litigant’s lifestyle (supporting multiple families or owning companies) points to passive or hidden income. Practitioners and litigants need to be sure they are suing the correct party. Once a child turns 18, the custodial standing of the mother for alimony claims often disappears, requiring direct litigation with the adult child. The UAE legal system differentiates between a disability to work and a disability to pay. As long as a father has properties, shares or businesses that can generate wealth, his physical health will not be a shield against his financial obligation to his children. At the end of the day, the court’s ruling highlights the social contract that the protection and care of the next generation remain the non-negotiable responsibility of a father, so long as the resources are available to provide it. The law ensures that even when a parent faces tragic health challenges, the children are not left to suffer the financial burden of those challenges alone.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Does disability automatically cancel a parent’s obligation to pay child maintenance or support?

No. Disability does not automatically cancel a parent’s obligation to pay maintenance. The court looks at whether there are other means such as assets, benefits or support from others. The obligation to provide maintenance for the child remains in place even when a parent is disabled unless there is no means to pay.

2. What factors most undermined the husband’s claim that he could not afford to pay maintenance?

There were glaring contradictions in the husband’s claim which could not substantiate his claim. He claimed that he was in financial hardship but the evidence showed that he was in possession of valuable assets and he was providing financial assistance to other people. The inconsistency cast a doubt on the truthfulness and accuracy of his claims of poverty, which weakened his claim for reduction or cancellation of maintenance.

3. Was the daughter considered in the maintenance application and in the court’s determination in this case?

The maintenance proceedings were not instituted in respect of the daughter who had attained the age of majority. As an adult, she is now responsible for pursuing any claims for maintenance or financial support on her own behalf. Once she is legally an adult the court cannot act for her or add her on to applications made by another parent.

4. Can a maintenance order be varied once made by the court?

Yes, a maintenance order can be varied but only if there is good and clear evidence that there has been a substantial change in the circumstances of either party. This may be a major change in income, work, health or other major life change. The court needs strong evidence before it will even entertain a change in an existing maintenance arrangement. The court will take into account the child’s special circumstances and needs when determining what level of maintenance is suitable. The court will take into account the child’s standard of living, education, health needs and any special needs to ensure that the level of maintenance is appropriate and reasonable for the welfare of the child.

5. What does the court take into account when calculating the level of child maintenance?

The court considered that the level of maintenance was reasonable as it was modest and appropriate to the particular needs of the child. It was not excessive and had taken into account the financial circumstances of both the payer and the payee. The aim of the court is to make sure that the child’s basic needs are met without placing an unreasonable burden on the payer.

6. What would have happened if the appellant had been able to show clearly that he had no assets or any financial means at all?

Had the appellant produced credible evidence of his lack of assets or any other financial resources, the court could have reconsidered the order for maintenance. In the present case, no such evidence was produced and hence, the maintenance order was not set aside. Courts do not change the orders on insufficient means, without sufficient proof.

7. What is the general legal principle for child maintenance that the court re-iterated with this judgement?

The court reiterated the fact that the payment of child maintenance is a fundamental and continuing duty of the parents, regardless of their personal or financial circumstances. The legal principle behind this is to ensure that a parent does not easily evade or dodge his responsibility towards the child and to reiterate the fact that the duties of a parent are continuing.