Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 32

Summary: - A dispute between spouses over marital household effects. Article 73 of Law No. 51 of 1984. Its import. - The appellant's claim to marital household effects particular to her, and the absence from the case papers of valid evidence in favour of either party, require that the statutory oath be tendered to her. The challenged judgment's departure from this renders it defective and requires its cassation. Rule: The import of Article 73 of Law No. 51 of 1984 concerning Personal Status is that: "If spouses dispute over marital household effects belonging to either or both of them, and one of them produces evidence supporting his or her claim, judgment shall be rendered accordingly. If neither has evidence, whatever is suitable only for women shall be awarded to the wife upon her oath; whatever is suitable for men shall be awarded to the husband upon his oath; and whatever is suitable for men and women shall be awarded to the husband upon his oath." This is because the house is the man's house, he has possession of it and its contents, and appearances support him and attest in his favour except as regards things particular to women. What is suitable for men and women is determined by prevailing custom. Jewellery and gold ornaments are things particular to women, who use them for adornment, unlike men. That being so, and since it is established from the case papers that the action lacked valid evidence in favour of either party, and what the appellant claims consists of gold ornaments and personal items and possessions particular only to women, the statutory oath should have been tendered to her. Since the challenged judgment departed from this view by dismissing the action because the appellant did not produce legally recognised evidence proving her claim, without tendering the statutory oath to her, it is defective in a manner requiring its cassation without any need to examine the remaining grounds of appeal.