The family occupies a central and protected position under Islamic Sharia and UAE law. The UAE judiciary has consistently emphasized that marriage is not merely a private contractual relationship but a foundational institution upon which societal stability rests. In its recent landmark judgment issued in Personal Status Appeal No. 967 of 2025, decided on 7 January 2026, the UAE Federal Supreme Court reaffirmed these principles while setting clear limits on when courts may dissolve a marriage for harm.

This judgment is particularly significant as it clarifies the boundaries of judicial discretion in divorce cases, the evidentiary burden on spouses seeking dissolution, and the binding effect of prior personal status judgments.

Family as the Cornerstone of Society

The Court began by reaffirming a fundamental principle derived from both Sharia and the UAE Constitution: the family is the first and most essential unit of society. Marriage is founded on affection, mercy, good companionship, and mutual obligations between spouses. For this reason, Islamic law strongly favors preserving the marital bond wherever possible, viewing divorce as an exceptional remedy rather than a preferred solution.

The Court stressed that the continuity of marriage reflects the ethical and social maturity of the legal system. Divorce, while permissible, is allowed only within strict limits and as a last resort when coexistence becomes genuinely impossible.

Divorce for Harm: A Right Subject to Proof

Under UAE Personal Status Law No. 41 of 2024, either spouse may seek divorce for harm if such harm makes continued marital life impossible. However, the Court emphasized that this right is not automatic. The claimant must prove real, serious, and sustained harm not mere disagreement, discomfort, or ordinary marital friction.

If the alleged harm is not proven, the court must dismiss the divorce claim. Importantly, the Court clarified that a spouse cannot repeatedly file divorce actions based on the same alleged harm unless new circumstances arise or a legally defined waiting period has elapsed.

Refiling Divorce Claims and the Six-Month Rule

One of the key clarifications in the judgment concerns the ability to refile a divorce-for-harm case after an earlier dismissal. The Court confirmed that a new claim may only be brought after six months from the issuance of the first-instance judgment or after that judgment becomes final whichever is later unless new facts or fresh harm arise.

This rule is designed to prevent abuse of process and protect judicial stability, ensuring that courts are not used to relitigate identical disputes under the guise of renewed claims.

Mandatory Reconciliation and Appointment of Arbitrators

The Court reaffirmed that reconciliation is not optional in marital disputes it is a legal and Sharia-based obligation. Where harm is alleged and reconciliation appears possible, the court must appoint two arbitrators, preferably from the families of the spouses.

These arbitrators do not act as witnesses, agents, or representatives. Rather, they exercise a quasi-judicial role derived directly from the Qur’an. Their mandate is to investigate the causes of discord, attempt reconciliation sincerely, and, if reconciliation fails, recommend separation with or without compensation.

Crucially, the Court confirmed that the arbitrators’ report carries binding evidentiary weight as long as it complies with Sharia and the law, even if one or both spouses object to its conclusions.

Limits on Compensation in Judicial Divorce

Where separation is recommended, the Court clarified that any financial compensation ordered against the wife must not exceed the mahr (dowry) recorded in the marriage contract. This statutory cap reflects Sharia principles and prevents punitive or disproportionate financial outcomes.

The trial judge retains authority to amend any arbitrators’ recommendation that conflicts with legal or Sharia standards.

Temporary Res Judicata in Personal Status Cases

A particularly important aspect of the judgment relates to the doctrine of res judicata in personal status matters. While judgments in family cases carry a “temporary” res judicata effect, they remain binding so long as the underlying circumstances remain unchanged.

The Court relied on a well-established Islamic principle— “a judge should not decide the same dispute twice differently”—to emphasize that courts must respect prior rulings unless material changes in circumstances are proven.

Error in Granting Divorce Without New Harm

Applying these principles to the case before it, the Court found that the appellate court erred in granting divorce. The wife had previously failed to prove harm, and no new circumstances arose thereafter. The dispute involved ordinary marital disagreements, not legally cognizable harm.

Moreover, the husband had consistently expressed willingness to maintain the marriage, provided a suitable marital home, complied with earlier judgments, and demonstrated concern for family unity and the welfare of the child. The wife, on the other hand, had refused to return to the marital home despite a valid obedience judgment.

In the Court’s view, dissolving the marriage in such circumstances contradicted Sharia, the Personal Status Law, and settled judicial principles.

Consequences of the UAE Federal Supreme Court Ruling

As a result, the UAE Federal Supreme Court overturned the divorce judgment and all its financial and custodial consequences, including deferred dowry, compensation, housing, and related expenses. The Court reinstated the principle that divorce cannot be granted merely because marital life is difficult or imperfect.

This ruling sends a strong message that UAE courts will not allow the institution of marriage to be undermined by unsubstantiated claims or repetitive litigation.

Practical Takeaways for Litigants and Practitioners

This judgment serves as critical guidance for spouses and legal practitioners alike. Divorce for harm requires clear, credible, and sustained evidence. Prior judgments matter and cannot be bypassed without genuine change in circumstances. Arbitrators play a central role, and their reports are not procedural formalities but substantive instruments of justice.

Above all, the ruling reinforces the UAE judiciary’s commitment to balancing compassion with legal discipline, ensuring that marriage is protected, not casually dissolved.

Authors: