After a marriage that lasted for more than 35 years, the Sharia Court ruled to deny the lineage of 5 children of Steini from his divorcee after conducting a DNA analysis that he proved that he is not the biological father for all of them. The court ruled to cancel all the implications of this percentage in the face of the Information and Electronic Government Authority, and the General Administration of Nationality and Passports, and the court confirmed that the results indicated in the report of technical expertise have a legal and legal legal authenticity that does not accept the opposite.
The strange story was listed by the husband of the lawyer, the lawyer, Ibtisam Al -Sabbagh, where her agent divorced his wife in June 2024, from which he gave birth to 5 children, the oldest of whom is 35 years old and the young man is 25 years old, and one day he was a sick man, so he went to one of the doctors and asked him to conduct laboratory analyzes, and the doctor told him that he suffers from a severe shortage of hormones and important enzymes, and therefore he could not have children The doctor informed that he had five children, and the doctor indicated to him to go to the laboratory to verify his children’s percentage, so he performed the genetic fingerprint examination of the oldest child to become clear to him that there is no connection with him, and then he submitted a report with the police station, which was referred to the child’s prosecution and the family, and all the five children were called and the genetic fingerprint examination was carried out to them all, and after the result appeared, they advised him to file a legal lawsuit related The proportions.
The lawyer, Ibtisam Al -Sabbagh, mentioned the decision in the jurisprudence of the Jaafari doctrine that the boy’s attribution to his father, even if it is fixed with bedding, acknowledgment, and evidence, is that this is conditional on his lack of contradiction with the rules of Islamic law, meaning that everything that could be attached to the boy to the husband must be attached to him on the apparent of the Sharia, so when the ruler knows this possibility, he will be judged without the need for evidence. It indicates that every child of the bed until the opposite is proven, but if it is proven that it is not possible to catch up realistically or scientifically, it is not correct to attach the boy to the husband and prove the lineage to him in this case based on the bed base and the rule branching on it, which is the possibility of attaching, as in the case of moral barrier, such as the difference in enzymes and blood factions between assets and branches.
The court said in the reasons for the ruling: Because the fixed report of the technical expertise to examine the genetic genes at the Criminal Investigation Laboratory of the General Administration of material evidence of the Public Prosecution of the Prosecutor and the First Prosecutor and the Five Children to deny their lineage is that he denies categorically that the five children are the core of the plaintiff, which was confirmed by the technical experience report and the deposited in the case file, which also was impossible to be impossible for these children to be from the plaintiff, which is not Their lineage is proven with him to the prosecutor with the previous marital bed, and with what is with him the declaration issued by the sonship of what the mind is lying, because there is no doubt that these results – shown in the report of technical expertise – are legal and legal, and it is a conclusive authenticity that does not accept the opposite, because the examination of genetic genes is considered one of the conclusive scientific clues indicating the denial of paternity or coffee, as it is considered to be proven in the rules of the systems The prescribed laboratory, because the difference in enzymes and blood factions between the origins and branches is considered, and in some way scientific research has been mentioned in this regard, such as the moral barrier that does not prove the child’s lineage to the man.
The court ruled first: to deny the proportions of the five children from the plaintiff and to cancel all the effects of this percentage, and in the face of the seventh defendant (the Information and Electronic Government Authority) and the eighth general administration of nationality, nuts and residence each in his capacity.
Second: By obligating the seventh and eighth defendants to erase the name of the plaintiff, from all official documents of the supporting of the five children.
