The Abu Dhabi Court of Family, Civil and Administrative Claims upheld a primary court ruling that ordered a woman to pay Dh10,000 in moral damages to her ex-husband for humiliating her through WhatsApp messages.

In the particulars, a man sued his ex-wife, demanding that she pay him 150,000 dirhams as compensation for material, moral and moral damages, and to compel her in return for fees and costs. A verdict found her guilty of legal fees indicating that she insulted and defamed him through the “WhatsApp” application.

The Court of First Instance ordered the defendant to pay 10,000 dirhams to the plaintiff, as well as costs, costs and attorney’s fees.

Respondent disagreed with this judgment and therefore filed his appeal, requesting that the suit be dismissed for premature filing and lack of evidence, and that appellant be ordered to pay costs and attorney’s fees.

It called the impugned judgment as error in application of law, corruption in presumption, exaggeration in assessment of compensation for judicial reasons other than established on record, and act of convicted appellant. As a matter of legal defense, apart from its judgment of the first-instance court, the defendant received compensation despite not having spent the estimated amount, and provided copies and photographs of judgments issued by individual level departments. WhatsApp conversations.

For its part, the Court of Appeal held that it was subject to a judgment in the present dispute and that the proven criminal judgments were contempt due to the fault of the appellant through the “WhatsApp” messages. Defendant; 10 thousand dirhams is sufficient, and the appellant has not put forward any new argument which changes the view of the case, and his obituary does not affect the judgment appealed against that the assessed valuation is excessive. The absence of a criminal conviction would affect the appellant’s claim that she was under reasonable defence, from which she would prove wrong, the Court of First Instance concluded after examining the evidence presented. He ruled.

The appellate court, in accordance with its discretionary power, decided to consider adequate compensation for moral damages in the judgment determined by the court of first instance, and ruled to accept the appeal in form and uphold the appeal. Rule

• The petitioner claimed that the appellant should be compelled to pay costs and attorney’s fees due to premature filing of the case and lack of evidence.