{"id":57696,"date":"2026-07-07T16:16:29","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T16:16:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/?post_type=press_releases&p=57696"},"modified":"2026-07-07T16:16:29","modified_gmt":"2026-07-07T16:16:29","slug":"is-alimony-in-the-uae-subject-to-inflation-evolving-child-needs-and-ongoing-review","status":"publish","type":"press_releases","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/press-releases\/is-alimony-in-the-uae-subject-to-inflation-evolving-child-needs-and-ongoing-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Alimony in the UAE Subject to Inflation, Evolving Child Needs, and Ongoing Review?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

The litigation involved the appellant (the mother), and the respondent (the father). The parties were married and had two children.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In 2015, a final judgment was issued which set\u00a0child support<\/strong>\u00a0(alimony) at AED 2,500 per month per child. This was the norm for nearly ten years.<\/p>\n

Court of First Instance<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2025 the father initiated a case for a decrease in the\u00a0amount of maintenance<\/strong>\u00a0to AED 1,500 for each child. He claimed that he had remarried and had a new family to support. He was burdened with bank loans, credit card debts and rental costs. The father alleged that the mother was not spending the full amount of the alimony on the children.<\/p>\n

Navigate UAE law with confidence. Become a part of\u00a0<\/i>\u00a0r\/KnowTheLaw\u00a0<\/a>\u2014your Reddit group for sharp analysis, strategic advice, and real solutions to complex legal matters.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Mother\u2019s Counter-Claim<\/strong><\/p>\n

The mother filed a strong counter-suit, seeking an increase in the\u00a0alimony<\/strong>\u00a0to AED 10,000 per month for each child. She based her claim on the passage of time. She argued that ten years had passed since the original order. The children were now teenagers (13 and 18 years old), requiring significantly more for their social, personal, and educational needs. She further alleged that\u00a0father\u2019s income<\/strong>\u00a0had surpassed AED 80,000 per month. She sought\u00a0housing allowances, furniture allowances<\/strong>, and\u00a0expenses for a driver,\u00a0car<\/a>\u00a0maintenance, and a maid<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The Court of First Instance relied on the doctrine of\u00a0res judicata<\/strong>\u00a0(res judicata) and a narrow interpretation of the\u00a0UAE Personal Status Law<\/strong>\u00a0on the age of\u00a0custody<\/a>. The Court noted the history of litigation between the parties, and found that claims for housing allowances, car maintenance and a driver\u2019s salary had already been litigated and dismissed or settled. Therefore, it ruled these specific requests inadmissible to avoid re-litigating the same facts.<\/p>\n

A significant finding involved one of the children. Since she was born in 2007, she had reached the age of 18 by the time of the judgment. Under Article 123 of\u00a0Federal Decree-Law No. 41 of 2024<\/strong>, the court ruled that custody naturally ends at 18 unless the child has a specific disability. Since the child who had reached the age of 18 was healthy, the mother\u2019s request to extend\u00a0custody<\/strong>\u00a0was denied.<\/p>\n

The Judgment<\/strong><\/p>\n

The\u00a0Court of First Instance<\/strong>\u00a0ruled the following:<\/p>\n