Ayman shape
The Civil Supreme Court of Appeal applied the Indian law issued in 1869 to divorce an Indian from a Filipino who married it in Bahrain, after I had two years and lived in a solo apartment, and discovered that she is using his money, and that the incubator who pays 60 dinars per month to sit with their daughter is the aunt of his wife, and does not do this and visits them only.
Lawyer Zahraa Al -Wadai, the husband of the husband, stated that her client submitted his lawsuit before the court of first degree, in which he stated that he married the defendant in Bahrain during the month of September 2016, and their marriage resulted in a child, but many problems began to penetrate their relationship, and refused to carry out her marital duties, and harmed him, and hid her motherhood for a girl who lived in the Philippines, as she escaped from the employer, Accumulated.
Al -Wadai added: “The wife also borrowed money, and the husband carries loyalty to her, and she agreed with an incubator to sit with their daughter for 60 dinars per month, and it turns out that the incubator is her aunt, and she does not sit with the child, but only visits them.”
On the other hand, the wife filed a lawsuit in which she requested divorce, and the husband should download the fees on a bond of saying that the husband assaulted her with insults and insults, and refrains from spending on her, but the first court court ruled to reject the two cases, so the husband stabbed the appeal.
The wife’s friend against her witnessed before the court, confirming that she resides in a non -marital residence, while the wife approved before a court of first degree, claiming that there are many problems, while the court said that the law is obligatory to be the country of the husband where the obligatory condition for divorce in the text of Article 10 of the Indian Divorce Law of 1869 is achieved that it differentiates between the husband and the wife in the case of desertion for two years. The court ruled to accept the appeal, and the judiciary again to divorce the appellant from the appellant against it, and obligated the expenses.
