Is Alimony in the UAE Subject to Inflation, Evolving Child Needs & Ongoing Review?

Background

The litigation involved the appellant (the mother), and the respondent (the father). The parties were married and had two children.

In 2015, a final judgment was issued which set child support (alimony) at AED 2,500 per month per child. This was the norm for nearly ten years.

Court of First Instance

In 2025 the father initiated a case for a decrease in the amount of maintenance to AED 1,500 for each child. He claimed that he had remarried and had a new family to support. He was burdened with bank loans, credit card debts and rental costs. The father alleged that the mother was not spending the full amount of the alimony on the children.

The Mother’s Counter-Claim

The mother filed a strong counter-suit, seeking an increase in the alimony to AED 10,000 per month for each child. She based her claim on the passage of time. She argued that ten years had passed since the original order. The children were now teenagers (13 and 18 years old), requiring significantly more for their social, personal, and educational needs. She further alleged that father’s income had surpassed AED 80,000 per month. She sought housing allowances, furniture allowances, and expenses for a driver, car maintenance, and a maid.

The Court of First Instance relied on the doctrine of res judicata (res judicata) and a narrow interpretation of the UAE Personal Status Law on the age of custody. The Court noted the history of litigation between the parties, and found that claims for housing allowances, car maintenance and a driver’s salary had already been litigated and dismissed or settled. Therefore, it ruled these specific requests inadmissible to avoid re-litigating the same facts.

A significant finding involved one of the children. Since she was born in 2007, she had reached the age of 18 by the time of the judgment. Under Article 123 of Federal Decree-Law No. 41 of 2024, the court ruled that custody naturally ends at 18 unless the child has a specific disability. Since the child who had reached the age of 18 was healthy, the mother’s request to extend custody was denied.

The Judgment

The Court of First Instance ruled the following:

• Rejected the father’s request to reduce alimony.
• Rejected the mother’s request to increase alimony.
• Maintained the status quo of AED 2,500 per child.

Court of Appeal

The mother appealed the decision to the Dubai Court. During this stage, a critical piece of evidence was introduced by the father’s employer. The introduction revealed that the father was now working as a manager with a monthly salary of AED 77,557. This was a substantial increase from his reported income during the 2015 litigation.

The Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, even in the face of evidence of increased income. The court reasoned that the mother did not establish that the children’s needs had changed to such a degree that the current sum of AED 2,500 was no longer sufficient. The court said the current amount was still ‘appropriate’ considering the children’s ages and the present economic situation.

Court of Cassation

The mother brought the matter to the Dubai Court of Cassation, arguing that the lower courts had committed a “perversion of justice” by ignoring the father’s wealth and the undeniable impact of inflation.

The Court of Cassation agreed with the lower courts on the housing issue. It ruled that the mother lived in a property owned by the heirs (including herself) and had lived there for ten years. Since she hadn’t actually moved or rented a new place, her claim for a “housing allowance” was deemed premature and unsupported by evidence.

Regarding the custody the Court reaffirmed the strict application of Article 123 of the 2024 Law. Since one of the children had reached 18, her legal “custody” had ended. The mother could not sue for custody of an adult.

The Court of Cassation took a significant stand on the alimony increase. It identified several fundamental errors in the lower court’s reasoning:

• The court noted that ten years is a significant period. Children who were toddlers or primary students in 2015 are now teenagers with vastly different requirements.
• “The price increase is a fact that no one is hiding,” the court said. It ruled that general inflation is a judicial fact that courts must take into account when assessing whether old alimony amounts are still “sufficient.”
• The court pointed to the father’s employer’s report. A salary of over AED 77,000 clearly placed the father in the “wealthy” category.

Judgment

The Court of Cassation annulled the appellate judgment in part and exercised its power to decide on the merits by issuing a new order:

1. The child’s alimony was increased from AED 2,500 to AED 3,500 per month each.

2. The increase was back-dated to the date of filing the suit.

3. All other requests (housing, driver, etc.) remained denied.

Conclusion

The ruling by the Dubai Court of Cassation is a landmark victory for custodial parents in the UAE. It sets some very strong legal precedents for future alimony disputes. The court’s admission that “nobody is unaware of the rise in prices” is a landmark statement. It means that custodial parents do not have to prove the price of every loaf of bread or liter of fuel in order to justify an increase; instead, the judiciary must accept the general economic fact of inflation. The ruling also notes that the needs of a teenager are inherently greater than those of a young child. The passage of a decade creates a “rebuttable presumption” that the original alimony is no longer adequate to meet the child’s needs for social and personal development. The court stressed that the personal financial decisions of a father, such as taking loans or remarrying, cannot be used to reduce his children’s financial entitlements. Alimony is based on gross capacity and income, not the net amount after a parent settles optional lifestyle debts. Finally, the ruling noted that alimony orders have only “temporary finality.” They are dynamic instruments that need to be reviewed periodically to ensure that the “dignified life” promised by UAE law remains a reality for the children, regardless of the time elapsed since the divorce. By increasing the alimony to AED 3,500, the Court of Cassation balanced the mother’s request with the father’s demonstrated capacity, ensuring that their children receive support reflective of the world in 2026, not the world of 2015.