Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 20

Summary: - If neither of them—the spouses—has testimonial evidence, items suitable only for women are awarded to the wife upon her oath; items suitable for men are awarded to the husband; and items suitable for men and women are awarded to the husband upon his oath. Reason: the house is the man’s house, and he possesses it and its contents; the apparent circumstances support and attest in his favour, except as regards items specific to women. Rule: Article 73 of Law No. 51 of 1984 concerning Personal Status provides that: “If the spouses disagree over the household effects and neither has testimonial evidence, the wife’s statement, upon her oath, shall prevail regarding items recognised as belonging to women, and the man’s statement, upon his oath, shall prevail regarding everything else.” This means—as established in the jurisprudence of this Court—that, if the spouses dispute the matrimonial effects, namely everything brought by the spouses jointly or by either of them that is required for use in the matrimonial home by one or both of them, and either produces testimonial evidence supporting his or her claim, judgment shall be given in that person’s favour accordingly. If neither has testimonial evidence, items suitable only for women are awarded to the wife upon her oath; items suitable for a man are awarded to the husband; and items suitable for men and women are awarded to the husband upon his oath, because the house is the man’s house, and he possesses it and its contents. The apparent circumstances support and attest in his favour, except as regards items specific to women. The determining factor as to what is suitable for men and women is prevailing custom, which may change with different times and places. That being so, the movables claimed by the appellant in her statement of claim included clothing and movables specific to women. Since she swore that they belonged to her, her claims concerning them should have been granted. This is not altered by the challenged judgment’s statement that the appellate court was not satisfied with the statements of her 2 witnesses, so long as she took the oath as described above. As the challenged judgment dismissed the action, it erred in applying the law, requiring its cassation.