The first law enacted by the UAE legislator to regulate dowries was Federal Law No. (12) of 1973, which consisted of four (4) articles. Article (1) thereof provided that:
“It shall not be permissible for the prompt dower stipulated in a marriage contract to exceed Four Thousand Dirhams, nor for the deferred dower to exceed Six Thousand Dirhams, nor for either thereof to be valued at an amount exceeding such value.”

Article (2) further stipulated that no claim before the courts shall be heard in relation to any amount exceeding either or both of the limits referred to in Article (1).

Thereafter, in 1997, the legislator enacted Federal Law No. (21) of 1997 concerning the Determination of Dowry in Marriage Contracts and Related Expenses, consisting of eight (8) articles, repealing the previous law. Said law fixed the prompt dower at AED 20,000 and the deferred dower at AED 30,000.

In addition, Article (3) thereof provided that wedding celebrations shall not exceed one day only, and that no more than nine camels may be slaughtered during wedding festivities.

The law imposed two sanctions for violations of its provisions. The first was administrative in nature, whereby the violator would be deprived of obtaining the marriage grant prescribed under Federal Law No. (47) of 1992, which ranged between AED 60,000 and AED 70,000. The second sanction was criminal in nature, consisting of a fine in the amount of AED 500,000.

However, in practice, Article (3) has never been effectively enforced. There has been no actual adherence to the limitation on the number of celebration days, nor to the number of camels slaughtered, and no instance has come to light in which a person was fined or deprived of the marriage grant for violating the aforementioned Article (3).

It is noteworthy that this law omitted any provision concerning the valuation of either the prompt or deferred dower, limiting itself solely to fixing the maximum amounts thereof, contrary to the concluding part of Article (1) of the previous law.

It is well established that a dower is not required to consist solely of a monetary sum; rather, it may consist of gold, silver, or any property possessing an assessable value. In order to address this issue, it is necessary first to provide an introduction concerning the historical origin of money.

The Origin of Money

When human beings settled in different regions and communities became in need of goods possessed by others in different regions, the need arose for an agreed medium possessing recognized value through which goods could be exchanged. Initially, barter systems were used, after which the Chinese utilized shells, while others used precious stones, ivory, fur, and similar items.

Subsequently, metallic currency emerged. At first, such currency represented the liability of its issuers, whose names were engraved thereon. Thereafter, the State intervened by affixing official seals thereto in order to confer legal recognition and to protect the public from counterfeiting and fraud in relation to gold and silver.

Scholars of numismatics¹ generally agree that gold and silver coinage was first minted, according to the opinion of Herodotus (561–546 BC), in Asia Minor by the Lydians during the reign of King Croesus². Such coinage thereafter spread throughout the world through trade.

As for the Muslims, following the expansion of Islamic territories, they minted their own currency during the reign of Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan in the year 79 AH. At that time, the currency consisted of three forms: the dinar and its fractions, such as the half and third dinar, minted in gold; the dirham, minted in silver; and the fals, minted in copper.

Thereafter, currency continued to evolve until reaching its present forms, including paper currency and electronic money such as credit cards.

Currency Depreciation and Appreciation

When currency was minted from gold and silver, it generally retained its value and withstood fluctuations in conditions and circumstances. However, following the transition to paper currency, currencies became vulnerable to depreciation merely upon invasion, occupation, or the outbreak of war within a state. In other instances, economic fluctuations themselves may result in substantial depreciation.

Such depreciation adversely affects a woman’s deferred dower. Indeed, the mere passage of a lengthy marriage period may suffice to diminish the purchasing power of the currency. Conversely, a marriage may be concluded at a time when the currency is weak, while at the time of divorce the currency may have regained or increased in value due to improved economic conditions, thereby causing prejudice to the husband.

Accordingly, certain states have adopted mechanisms intended to preserve the value of deferred dower. They calculate and settle deferred dower amounts in accordance with changes in the annual value index corresponding to the year of payment relative to the year in which the marriage contract was concluded. Responsibility for such calculations is assigned to the central bank, unless the spouses have agreed upon an alternative arrangement at the time of concluding the marriage contract.

In one personal status case before the Dubai Courts involving Iranian parties, the woman’s deferred dower at the time of the marriage contract in 1991 amounted to 2,000,000 Tomans³. Upon divorce in 2009, the deferred dower was recalculated to amount to 44,873,929 Tomans. This method constitutes an effective means of preserving rights, especially given the increasing prevalence of wars and their severe adverse effects on currency values, often resulting in sharp depreciation that may unjustly prejudice a woman if she is awarded only the nominal amount recorded in the marriage contract.

This method is relatively straightforward, as it relies upon the use of the index number⁴ in calculating the dower.

As an alternative to such adjustments, the parties may agree that the deferred dower shall consist of gold, given that gold is generally recognized as retaining its value under the circumstances referred to above, and since currencies themselves are historically linked thereto.

Particularly noteworthy in this regard is that the new law (Federal Law No. 21 of 1997) repealed the previous law, which had expressly provided that:
“… nor may either thereof be valued at an amount exceeding such value.”

Consequently, the new law effectively permits the valuation of the dower at amounts exceeding the statutory limits, provided that the dower is not stipulated as a monetary amount.

Accordingly, we recommend that wives and their guardians stipulate deferred dowers in the form of property possessing an assessable value, such as gold. We likewise recommend that husbands pay the dower in full at the outset in order to avoid the effects of depreciation or appreciation in value over time.

Furthermore, we recommend that the legislator adopt a mechanism whereby, if the dower is stipulated as a monetary amount, its purchasing value at the time of divorce shall be recalculated through application of the relevant index number.
 

Lawyer / Mukhtar Gharib

¹ Numismatics: the science concerned with the identification and study of currencies, weights, seals, and medals.
² Known among Arabs as Qarun.
³ The currency of Iran.
⁴ An “Index Number” is a statistical indicator measuring the relative change affecting a particular phenomenon — whether price, quantity, value, or wage — in relation to a specific base period or geographical location. The value of the phenomenon at the base period serves as the basis for calculating the index number. The time or location to which the phenomenon is attributed is referred to as the “base period” or “base location,” while the period or location against which comparison is made is referred to as the “comparison period” or “comparison location.”