The Great Sharia Court rejected a Bahraini request for divorce from her husband and the father of her children for the harm, after the husband presented a “WhatsApp” conversation with his wife confirming her desire to “preserve her home and her family, and that she does not satisfy her to participate in it.” Lawyer Muhammad Al -Mannai, the husband of the husband, that the plaintiff has reconciled with his client in the alimony case she filed, and that the peace must be before him, asking: “How do you reconcile with a husband who hates living with him?!”
Lawyer’s husband, Muhammad Al -Mannai, stated that his client’s wife filed the lawsuit before the Sharia court, in which she stated that she is the wife of the defendant since 9/11/2021, and they had two sons, but she was damaged by her husband; Because of his mistreatment of her, he does not improve her intercourse, and beat her in her right hand, as he tightened the right hand and pulled it from the muscle side using his left hand, and caused her a lot of colored bruises in violet, red and green in both hands, and he caused her pain and material and psychological damage that stormed her and her marital life that has become a hell that she wanted to get rid of.
The claimant wife indicated that she had submitted a report at the police station, and a criminal order was issued against the husband with that incident, while the lawyer stated that the whole lawsuit is confined to that incident and the ruling issued there, and it was reconciled after the alimony case was filed, and he asked: How does the plaintiff reconcile with a husband who hates living with him?! He asked to reject the lawsuit; Because his client holds his wife.
The defendant’s agent presented the text of the “WhatsApp” conversation between the plaintiff and her husband, stating its content that she wants to preserve him and her children, and that she does not want to demolish her house, and that she wants to raise her children under her wing and wing, and that she is not satisfied that anyone shares her in it.
The court offered the reconciliation to the two parties, and the wife’s agent stated that his client rejects the conciliation, and adheres to the request for divorce, while the husband stated that he is adhering to the prosecutor and marital life, while the court referred to the course of the jurisprudence that the law had stipulated that the damage would reach an end that the ten times are not possible until the judge rules the divorce, and he intended from that emphasis on the dissolution of the marital bond, He made the ten impossible or not according to his discretionary authority, and since what is meant by the harm is to harm the husband to his wife by saying or verb, harm is not usually between her likes, and the ten between them is not able, and it is not required for her answer to her request to repeat the harm to her, but it is sufficient for that to prove that her husband came with her with what she is affected by him, even once and deciding the elements of the damage; From what the trial court is independent.
The court noted the text of the conversation presented by the defendant, which the plaintiff did not deny, and said that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove the damage that is impossible with the tenth marital, and it is necessary to divorce the damage, and the court ruled to reject the lawsuit and exempt the two parties from the expenses and obligate the plaintiff in exchange for the law fees.
