UAE Court Child Support And Maintenance Ruling 2025

Case Summary:

The wife has alleged that she has been receiving more maintenance, child support and housing allowance due to the increment in the income of the husband. After reconciliation failed, she filed a case against her ex-husband in Personal Status Court, requesting the following:

Claims Made By The Wife

1. An increase in the annual housing allowance from AED 72,000 to AED 150,000 and in utility bills from AED 1,200 to AED 3,000 per month, along with a one-time furniture allowance, on the grounds that their one daughter and two sons require larger accommodation as they grow older.
2. An increase in child support from AED 7,200 to AED 15,000 per month.
3. Payment of AED 3,000 for school supplies.
4. Replacement of the current vehicle (2005 model) with a modern vehicle (2025 model), along with a monthly allowance of AED 2,000 for petrol, AED 500 for Salik, and coverage of necessary maintenance costs.
5. Provision of a housemaid with a valid working visa and payment of her monthly salary.
6. An increase in Eid clothing allowance from AED 500 to AED 1,500 per child.
7. Monthly payment of AED 5,000 for private tuition fees.
8. Coverage of annual travel tickets and related expenses.
9. Payment of all her fees, expenses, and legal costs, given her role as the former wife and mother of his three children.

Court Of First Instance Findings

After reviewing the evidence and deliberation, the judge ruled:

Relief Sought	Court Decision
Housing Allowance	Increased to AED 80,000 annually
Utility Bills	Increased up to AED 1,500 per month
Child Support	Increased to AED 8,100
School Supplies	AED 1,000 granted
Vehicle Replacement	Replacement car worth AED 40,000 granted
Other Requests	Rejected

The husband filed a counterclaim against the ex-wife, which was dismissed by the court.

Court Of Appeal Findings

The court attempted to facilitate reconciliation between the parties, but it was unsuccessful.

The court accepted the form and rules to amend the value of the substitute car to AED 60,000. The appealed judgement was upheld in all other respects, except for the amendment mentioned above.

Wife Files Cassation Appeal

The wife, dissatisfied with the outcome, filed an appeal in Cassation with No. 706/2025 on the grounds of:

• Violation of the law
• Insufficient reasoning
• Flawed rationale
• Infringement of the right of defence
• Disregard of evidence in the case file

She argued that the Court had erroneously underestimated the cost of living and the price of necessities, which increase as the children grow older.

She specifically highlighted:

• The market price of a four-wheel-drive vehicle
• The inadequate value of the awarded iPad, set at only AED 1,000
• The denial of the provision of a maid
• The rejection of travel expenses
• The denial of private tuition fees for the growing children

Court Of Cassation Findings

The court ruled to dismiss the appeal.

Several legal principles guide the court when assessing the maintenance a guardian is obliged to pay.

Maintenance Under Article 63(2) Of The Personal Status Law

Article 63(2) of the Personal Status Law provides:

“Maintenance shall be determined according to the financial ability of the maintainer, the condition of the dependant, and the economic circumstances of the time and place. However, maintenance shall not be less than what is sufficient.”

The court observed that the provision of a maid is contingent upon evidence demonstrating such necessity, which the claimant failed to provide.

As long as the trial court reached a sound judgement after evaluating the need for a maid, an appeal against that decision merely reflects dissatisfaction with the conclusion of the Court of First Instance, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Cassation.

Court Discretion In Child Support Cases

The court further held that the amount of child support and any deviation is a matter of fact within the discretionary power of the judge.

The ruling cannot be reviewed as long as it is based on reasonable grounds and evidence contained in the case file.

The father is required to meet basic needs such as:

• Food
• Beverage
• Clothing
• Housing
• Education
• Essential services

However, non-school costs such as private tutoring are optional and must be considered at the discretion of the court depending on:

• The best interests of the child
• The financial ability of the father

In line with this reasoning, the application for private tuition fees was denied.

iPad And Educational Expenses

The court held that a laptop or similar digital device is an essential item in the life and education of children.

Therefore, the court directed the guardian to compensate AED 1,000 per child for an iPad, which was considered sufficient.

Travel Expenses Not Part Of Maintenance

On the issue of travel tickets and related costs, the court stated that such expenses do not form part of the maintenance duty of the father.

Principles Governing Maintenance Determination

While deciding maintenance, the court must:

• Examine the financial capacity of the guardian
• Assess the established needs of the children
• Consider all surrounding circumstances
• Balance necessity with affordability

The Court of First Instance is at liberty to determine the amount of maintenance based on the evidence placed before it.

An appeal based solely on dissatisfaction with the trial court’s factual findings and discretionary assessment falls outside the scope of cassation review.

Conclusion

The court assessed the financial capacity of the respondent and the needs of the dependents in the exercise of its discretionary authority.

Based on this assessment, it ruled to increase maintenance and allowances, determined the appropriate value for the iPad, and rejected the request to increase the Eid clothing allowance, as stated in the operative part of the judgement.

Accordingly, the conclusion reached by the contested judgement upholding the appellate judgement in this regard was found to be correct and free from any violation of law.

The grounds raised by the appellant amounted to nothing more than a challenge to the trial court’s discretionary authority in determining the amount and basis of maintenance and allowances, a matter falling outside the scope of review of the Court of Cassation.