Ayman shape
The Sharia Court of Cassation canceled a ruling to compel a Gulf to pay 21 thousand dinars annually annually for his two sons from Bahraini, and ruled again the refusal of the lawsuit, stressing that the custody of the children to their Gulf father, after he submitted to the court a final ruling to drop the custody of his divorcee, which she tried to obtain from his country’s court, then returned and filed the lawsuit again with the same requests in Bahrain.
On the details of the lawsuit, the lawyer, Jassem Al -Thawadi, explained that his Gulf client married a Bahraini, and she gave birth to two sons, but because of the family differences, the divorce took place between them, and a lawsuit filed against him in his country by requesting the inclusion of the children’s custody of it, but the court refused her law Bahrain, and asked to include the children’s custody of it again, and also requested that it be obligated to expenditures and academic expenses, claiming that her ex -wife asked her to stay in Bahrain with children, and refrained from spending on them.
The Court of the First Class in Bahrain ruled to include the custody of the wife and obliging the husband with approximately 21 thousand dinars annually in exchange for the monthly expenditures and the cladding of the two feasts, in addition to the school fees, and the Court of Appeal supported this ruling, challenging the ruling on discrimination, and the Al -Thawadi lawyer confirmed the ruling of the law based on the fact that his client had previously issued a final Gulf ruling to include the custody of the children to him based on a lawsuit that was submitted to him. And he adhered before the Court of Cassation for the authenticity of the Gulf final ruling issued to his client in a way that refrains from re -examining the dispute before the Bahraini courts, in accordance with the provisions of the Riyadh Judicial Cooperation Agreement, especially since the Gulf ruling did not violate Bahraini law, nor did the reasons and justifications of that ruling change.
The court stated in the reasons for the ruling that, according to the agreement to implement the rulings of the Gulf Cooperation Council states, the rulings issued by the courts of any member state in the Gulf Cooperation Council are being implemented in Bahrain as if it were issued by its courts, and it has its authenticity before the Bahraini judiciary in accordance with what was stated in the agreement, as long as the case itself is a subject and a reason, and also indicated that the Gulf ruling to include the custody of the children of the father is a final ruling that has the strength of the order to decline before the courts of Bahrain. For the agreement to implement the rulings between member states, and for these reasons, the contested judgment must be canceled and the judiciary again is to overturn the ruling on the inclusion of children’s custody of their mother with the consequent requests for alimony, school expenses, custody and judiciary wages, and it again ruled the refusal of the lawsuit.
