A woman asks to prove the lineage of her child to a man with a “genetic fingerprint”

An Arab woman filed a lawsuit before the Dubai courts, demanding proof of her son’s lineage to a man whom she reported to be married to by customary law, and requested that the defendant and the child be referred to forensic medicine for a DNA examination, but the Court of First Instance ruled that the case was dismissed because the defendant denied the existence of the marital relationship between them, and his sit-in to deny his lineage of the son, and the court’s lack of confidence in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

In detail, the plaintiff based her case on the basis of saying that she is the wife of the defendant in a legal, customary marriage in a European country, since early 2016, and the marriage was based on the absence of dowry and in the presence of two just witnesses, and that marriage met the conditions required by Sharia – as she said – and it remained in place until The year 2018 resulted in the birth of a child in that European country.

The plaintiff said that he had been delaying her since the beginning of the marriage in proving the relationship between them, on the pretext that he was married to his cousin, and according to the law of the country in which they reside, he is not entitled to marry more than one woman, otherwise his wife will imprison him.

She added that he bargained with her, trying to convince her that he had borrowed from his first wife, and that he would marry her in the United Arab Emirates as soon as he paid off his debts to her.

She indicated that he took care of the child after that, and was keen to spend on him, and he was traveling with them to renew the child’s residence visa in the country, pointing out that her family contacted him to persuade him to quickly prove the marriage and lineage of the child, and that one of the people working in his company was aware of their marriage, and that the latter intervened To persuade her to abort the pregnancy from the beginning at the request of the defendant.

And she added that a dispute arose between them in 2021 and reached the police, and when asked in the interrogation report, he stated that he had known her for a while, and had no connection with her currently, and she was chasing him and claiming that he was the father of her child, which is not true, and he asked the police to help him remove her from him.

According to the case papers, the defendant submitted a complaint to the General Directorate of Residency and Foreign Affairs stating that the plaintiff forged his signature on the no-objection request to issue a residency for the child, but the complaint was filed after it was found that he fabricated the crime of forgery to deport her from the country with her child, according to her statements in the parentage claim.

In her statement, the plaintiff decided that she did not possess evidence of her engagement and marriage with the defendant, and that she went to the embassy of whose nationality he belongs in that European country to obtain a passport for the child, but she did not obtain a permit or approval from the father, and she did not possess the original document signed by him to obtain residency. And that she herself added the name of the defendant and his family to the child’s birth certificate without the consent of the first.

For his part, the defendant denied the child’s attribution to him, stating that he did not give the plaintiff a letter to obtain a residency for the son, and submitted a memorandum in which he insisted that the case was not accepted, denying the existence of any marital relationship between them, and also denied scanned images of conversations between them via “WhatsApp” that support her statements.

For its part, the court stated in its merits that in light of the defendant’s denial of the existence of the marital relationship, and his sit-in to deny the lineage of the son, since the beginning of the case and before it, in addition to the court’s lack of confidence in the testimony of the witnesses, and the plaintiff’s confusion in her statements regarding the date of the alleged marriage, which does not prove the existence of the bed. correct between the two parties, and hinders the court from responding to its request to conduct a DNA examination, and then ruled to dismiss the case.

The plaintiff claimed that she is the wife of the defendant in a common-law marriage in a European country.