The Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims rejected a woman’s lawsuit that demanded to compel a man to pay her 306,871 dirhams in addition to 50 thousand dirhams in compensation for the moral and moral damages she sustained after he promised her to marry and seized her money.
In the details, a woman filed a lawsuit against a man, demanding that he pay her an amount of 246,871 dirhams, in addition to the interest imposed on this amount from the bank, amounting to 60,000 dirhams, in addition to the legal interest at a rate of 12% annually from the date of the judicial claim until full payment, with his obligation To pay her compensation for moral and moral damages in the amount of 50 thousand dirhams, in addition to obligating him to pay the fees and expenses of the lawsuit and in return for the attorney’s fees, noting that she had had a friendship with the defendant since 2018, and he succeeded in deluding her into marriage, and as a result she lent him sums Financial intermittently over a period of 20 months, with bank interests amounting to 306,871 dirhams.
The plaintiff indicated that the amount of the claim included her sending an amount of 81 thousand and 450 dirhams through transfers to the son of the defendant and his friends, and an amount of 39 thousand and 222 dirhams that she lent to the defendant, and an amount of 36 thousand and 200 dirhams resulting from his use of her bank card, in addition to the amount of 90 thousand dirhams that she handed to him in cash. He pointed out that these amounts were borrowed from the bank and resulted in interests amounting to 60 thousand dirhams.
The plaintiff confirmed that she had learned that the defendant’s promise to her to marry was a lie, which prompted her to file a report at the police station for the crime of illegally seizing her money, and then filed the present case, and attached as a support for her claim photocopies of the police station’s evidence report with the defendant’s statements in The report submitted by her, the plaintiff’s account statement in one of the banks, and the plaintiff’s personal finances and profits.
For its part, the court clarified in the merits of its ruling, that the court established that it had previously decided in the same case by rejecting it, and the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff, and the judgment was issued that the civil department had no jurisdiction and the papers were referred to the Personal Status Court, and the Personal Status Court also ruled that it lacks jurisdiction, and then This court cannot decide on the subject matter of the case again, as it must not be accepted, and the court ruled that the case is not accepted.
Read also :