Background
Our client, the Defendant, was represented by Mrs Awatif Al Khouri of Awatif Mohammad Shoqi Advocates and Legal Consultancy in a family dispute concerning the breakdown of a marriage. The plaintiff initiated personal status proceedings seeking a divorce, restrictions on the Defendant’s ability to travel with the children, transfer of custody, and repayment of a substantial sum of money.
The Defendant contested these claims and raised, among other defences, an objection regarding one of the adult children, who had already reached the age of majority and therefore had no proper place as a subject of the proceedings brought by the other parent.
Court of First Instance
The court first addressed the standing issue concerning the adult child, finding that a person who has reached the age of majority is legally entitled to represent themselves in personal status matters. Since the child in question had already crossed that threshold and there was no evidence of lack of capacity, the court held that the claimant lacked standing to bring claims on the child’s behalf, and therefore that claim was dismissed.
Turning to the divorce claim, the court applied the relevant statutory standard to show that attempts at reconciliation had been made. The court found that the evidentiary threshold had not been met and rejected the divorce request.
With respect to the remaining minor children, the court declined to transfer custody as requested; however, the court ordered that travel documents be held by the claimant. All other claims raised by the claimant, including the financial claims relating to an alleged loan and the request to compel the sale of the family home, were rejected.
Court of Appeal
The claimant appealed against the decision, complaining about the dismissal of the divorce claim, the custody outcome, and the financial and property claims. The Court of Appeal accepted the appeal but rejected it entirely on the merits, upholding the first instance decision in full.
The court found no basis to overturn the rejection of the divorce claim. On custody, the court noted that the parties continued to share living arrangements and effectively shared care of the children and found no error in the decision against awarding sole custody to the claimant. On the financial claims, the court held that the claimant had failed to meet his burden of proof, as the evidence submitted did not support the financial and property-related relief sought.
Conclusion
This case demonstrates the importance of complying with the legal requirements for claims for children who have reached the age of majority, for presenting adequate evidence in family disputes, and for evaluating custody arrangements based on actual living and caregiving situations of the parties. It also emphasises the importance of having clear evidence when making financial claims between spouses. Through a carefully structured defence, our client successfully obtained favourable judgments at both the first-instance and appellate stages.
