فيما حصلت عروس على حكم قضائي نهائي من محكمة الأحوال الشخصية بشأن دعوى استعادة هدايا الخطوبة، كشف المحامي خالد أبو راشد لـ«عكاظ»، أن نظام الأحوال الشخصية تناول أحكام الخطبة وحقوق والتزامات كل من الخاطب والمخطوبة، وعالج النظام ما يقع من خلافات مالية أو اختلافات خلال فترة الخطوبة، ومنها الهدايا.
وقالت المخطوبة المدعى عليها، إنها عروس سابقة وفسخت خطبتها في وقت سابق، وفوجئت لاحقا بدعوى من الخاطب مطالبا إلزامها بإعادة مجموعة من الهدايا التي قدمها إبان خطوبتهما التي استمرت نحو شهرين، بنحو 9 آلاف ريال، منها جهاز جوال، وخاتم ذهب، وساعة، وعطورات.
وبحسب التفاصيل التي تابعتها «عكاظ»، طالب الخاطب المحكمة بإلزام خطيبته بإعادة مجموعة من الهدايا التي قدمها لها بعد أن قرر صرف النظر عن الزواج، وقال في دعواه، إنه تقدم لخطبة مطلقة واستمرت الخطوبة نحو شهرين، وفضّل تأجيل مراسم العقد لظروف تخصه، وبعد مضي فترة من الخطوبة تراجع، وصرف النظر عن إكمال الزواج وقرر الرجوع لزوجته السابقة لوجود 3 أبناء له منها. وحصر المدعي دعواه في استعادة قائمة الهدايا بفواتيرها والتي قدمها لخطيبته وطالب بإلزامها بإعادتها أو إعادة قيمتها. وردت المخطوبة المدعى عليها أمام المحكمة، أنها تضررت من الخاطب الذي أوهم أسرتها بالزواج منها، وتركت وظيفتها بناء على طلبه ورغبته وموافقتها له، لكنه تراجع وأخبر والدها أنه يرغب العودة لزوجته السابقة وأنه يعتذر عن إكمال الزواج.
المحكمة سألت المدعي عن الهدايا ووقتها، فأجاب أنه قدمها على دفعات متفرقة خلال فترة الخطوبة لكسب ودها لكن لم يحصل النصيب بينهما، وبعد أن استمعت المحكمة إلى كافة الأطراف خلصت إلى أن الهدايا التي قدمها المدعي الخاطب لخطيبته خلال فترة الخطوبة حق لها، ولا يحق للخاطب استردادها طبقا لنظام الأحوال الشخصية، وقررت الحكم برد الدعوى، وبات الحكم نهائيا.
وأوضح المحامي خالد أبو راشد لـ«عكاظ»، أن نظام الأحوال الشخصية الجديد نظم أحكام الخطبة وحقوق والتزامات كل من الخاطب والمخطوبة، وعالج ما يقع من خلافات مالية أو اختلافات خلال فترة الخطوبة، ومنها مسألة الهدايا؛ وقال إن الخطبة هي طلب الزواج والوعد به، ولكل من الخاطب والمخطوبة العدول وفق النظام، وأن جميع ما يقدمه الخاطب أو المخطوبة إلى الآخر خلال فترة الخطبة يعد هدية؛ ما لم يصرح الخاطب بأن ما قدمه يعد مهرا أو جرى عرفا أنه من المهر.
وأوضح أبو راشد، أن النظام نص على أن الهدايا التي يقدّمها الخاطب أو المخطوبة للآخر لا يمكن استردادها في حال كان سبب فسخ الخطبة يعود لمتخذ القرار وحده، ويجوز للطرف الذي لم يتخذ قرار فسخ الخطبة أن يطالب الطرف الآخر الذي اتخذ قرار الفسخ بردّ الهدايا التي قدّمها له في حال كانت الهدية من الأشياء التي لا تُستهلك بطبيعتها وما زالت قائمة، وإن كان تم تبديدها فتُرد قيمتها وقت قبضها.
ماذا لو انتهت الخطبة بالوفاة؟
المحامي أبو راشد، أوضح أنه في حال انتهت الخطبة بالوفاة، أو بسبب لا دخل لأحد الطرفين فيه؛ فلا يُسترد شيء من الهدايا المقدمة؛ مؤكدا أن حق العدول عن الخطبة مكفول للطرفين. وقال، إن نظام الأحوال الشخصية فرّق بين المهر والهدية في عدد المواد النظامية؛ منها أن جميع ما يقدمه الخاطب أو المخطوبة إلى الآخر خلال فترة الخطبة يُعد هدية؛ ما لم يصرّح الخاطب بأن ما قَدّمه يُعد مهرا أو جرى عرفا أنه من المهر.
وأشار المحامي أبو راشد، إلى أنه في حال سلّم الخاطب إلى مخطوبته قبل انعقاد الزواج مبلغا من المال على أنه من المهر، ثم عدل عن إتمام الزواج، أو حتى كان سبب العدول من المخطوبة، أو مات قبل العقد؛ فإنه يحق للخاطب أو لورثته الرجوع في ما سلّم بعينه إن كان قائما وإلا بمثله أو بقيمته يوم القبض. وأكد في حال اشترت المخطوبة بالمهر أو بجزء منه أغراضا أو أدوات من أجل تجهيزات الزواج - وفق ما جرى به العرف - وكان العدول من الخاطب وبلا سبب من قِبَل المخطوبة، أو كان العدول منها بسبب من الخاطب؛ فلها الخيار بين إعادة المهر أو تسليم ما اشترته بحاله.
قانوني يوضح ضوابط هدايا المخطوبين..
عريس يقاضي خطيبته: «أعيدي الجوال والخاتم والساعة».. «عكاظ» تكشف الوقائع
12 أكتوبر 2025 - 20:24
|
آخر تحديث 12 أكتوبر 2025 - 20:24
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
عدنان الشبراوي (الرياض) Adnanshabrawi@
A bride has obtained a final court ruling from the Personal Status Court regarding a lawsuit for the recovery of engagement gifts. Lawyer Khaled Abu Rashid revealed to "Okaz" that the Personal Status Law addressed the provisions of engagement and the rights and obligations of both the fiancé and the fiancée, and the law dealt with financial disputes or disagreements that arise during the engagement period, including gifts.
The defendant fiancée stated that she is a former bride who had previously broken off her engagement and was later surprised by a lawsuit from the fiancé demanding that she return a collection of gifts he had given her during their engagement, which lasted about two months, amounting to approximately 9,000 riyals, including a mobile phone, a gold ring, a watch, and perfumes.
According to the details followed by "Okaz," the fiancé requested the court to compel his fiancée to return a collection of gifts he had given her after he decided to withdraw from the marriage. He stated in his lawsuit that he proposed to a divorced woman and their engagement lasted about two months. He preferred to postpone the marriage ceremony due to personal circumstances, and after some time, he reconsidered and decided not to proceed with the marriage and to return to his ex-wife, with whom he has three children. The plaintiff limited his lawsuit to recovering the list of gifts with their receipts that he had given to his fiancée and demanded that she be compelled to return them or to refund their value. The defendant fiancée responded in court that she was harmed by the fiancé, who misled her family about marrying her. She left her job at his request and with her consent, but he later retracted and informed her father that he wished to return to his ex-wife and apologized for not completing the marriage.
The court asked the plaintiff about the gifts and when they were given, to which he replied that he had given them in separate installments during the engagement to win her affection, but fate did not bring them together. After hearing from all parties, the court concluded that the gifts given by the plaintiff fiancé to his fiancée during the engagement period are her right, and the fiancé is not entitled to reclaim them according to the Personal Status Law. The court decided to dismiss the lawsuit, and the ruling became final.
Khaled Abu Rashid explained to "Okaz" that the new Personal Status Law organized the provisions of engagement and the rights and obligations of both the fiancé and the fiancée, addressing financial disputes or disagreements that arise during the engagement period, including the issue of gifts. He stated that engagement is a request for marriage and a promise thereof, and both the fiancé and the fiancée have the right to withdraw according to the law. Everything that the fiancé or fiancée gives to the other during the engagement period is considered a gift unless the fiancé explicitly states that what he has given is a dowry or it is customary that it is part of the dowry.
Abu Rashid clarified that the law stipulates that gifts given by the fiancé or fiancée to the other cannot be reclaimed if the reason for breaking off the engagement is solely the decision of one party. The party who did not make the decision to break off the engagement may request the other party who made the decision to return the gifts given to them if the gift consists of items that are not consumed by nature and are still in existence. If they have been consumed, their value at the time of receipt should be returned.
What if the engagement ends due to death?
Lawyer Abu Rashid explained that if the engagement ends due to death or for reasons beyond either party's control, nothing from the presented gifts can be reclaimed, emphasizing that the right to withdraw from the engagement is guaranteed to both parties. He stated that the Personal Status Law distinguishes between dowry and gifts in several legal articles; among them is that everything given by the fiancé or fiancée to the other during the engagement period is considered a gift unless the fiancé states that what he has given is a dowry or it is customary that it is part of the dowry.
Abu Rashid pointed out that if the fiancé gives his fiancée an amount of money before the marriage is contracted, claiming it is part of the dowry, and then withdraws from completing the marriage, or if the reason for the withdrawal is from the fiancée, or if he dies before the contract; the fiancé or his heirs have the right to reclaim what was given in kind if it still exists, or its equivalent or value at the time of receipt. He confirmed that if the fiancée purchased items or tools for wedding preparations with the dowry or part of it—according to customary practice—and the withdrawal was from the fiancé without any reason from the fiancée, or if the withdrawal was from her due to the fiancé's reasons; she has the option to either return the dowry or deliver what she purchased in its current state.
The defendant fiancée stated that she is a former bride who had previously broken off her engagement and was later surprised by a lawsuit from the fiancé demanding that she return a collection of gifts he had given her during their engagement, which lasted about two months, amounting to approximately 9,000 riyals, including a mobile phone, a gold ring, a watch, and perfumes.
According to the details followed by "Okaz," the fiancé requested the court to compel his fiancée to return a collection of gifts he had given her after he decided to withdraw from the marriage. He stated in his lawsuit that he proposed to a divorced woman and their engagement lasted about two months. He preferred to postpone the marriage ceremony due to personal circumstances, and after some time, he reconsidered and decided not to proceed with the marriage and to return to his ex-wife, with whom he has three children. The plaintiff limited his lawsuit to recovering the list of gifts with their receipts that he had given to his fiancée and demanded that she be compelled to return them or to refund their value. The defendant fiancée responded in court that she was harmed by the fiancé, who misled her family about marrying her. She left her job at his request and with her consent, but he later retracted and informed her father that he wished to return to his ex-wife and apologized for not completing the marriage.
The court asked the plaintiff about the gifts and when they were given, to which he replied that he had given them in separate installments during the engagement to win her affection, but fate did not bring them together. After hearing from all parties, the court concluded that the gifts given by the plaintiff fiancé to his fiancée during the engagement period are her right, and the fiancé is not entitled to reclaim them according to the Personal Status Law. The court decided to dismiss the lawsuit, and the ruling became final.
Khaled Abu Rashid explained to "Okaz" that the new Personal Status Law organized the provisions of engagement and the rights and obligations of both the fiancé and the fiancée, addressing financial disputes or disagreements that arise during the engagement period, including the issue of gifts. He stated that engagement is a request for marriage and a promise thereof, and both the fiancé and the fiancée have the right to withdraw according to the law. Everything that the fiancé or fiancée gives to the other during the engagement period is considered a gift unless the fiancé explicitly states that what he has given is a dowry or it is customary that it is part of the dowry.
Abu Rashid clarified that the law stipulates that gifts given by the fiancé or fiancée to the other cannot be reclaimed if the reason for breaking off the engagement is solely the decision of one party. The party who did not make the decision to break off the engagement may request the other party who made the decision to return the gifts given to them if the gift consists of items that are not consumed by nature and are still in existence. If they have been consumed, their value at the time of receipt should be returned.
What if the engagement ends due to death?
Lawyer Abu Rashid explained that if the engagement ends due to death or for reasons beyond either party's control, nothing from the presented gifts can be reclaimed, emphasizing that the right to withdraw from the engagement is guaranteed to both parties. He stated that the Personal Status Law distinguishes between dowry and gifts in several legal articles; among them is that everything given by the fiancé or fiancée to the other during the engagement period is considered a gift unless the fiancé states that what he has given is a dowry or it is customary that it is part of the dowry.
Abu Rashid pointed out that if the fiancé gives his fiancée an amount of money before the marriage is contracted, claiming it is part of the dowry, and then withdraws from completing the marriage, or if the reason for the withdrawal is from the fiancée, or if he dies before the contract; the fiancé or his heirs have the right to reclaim what was given in kind if it still exists, or its equivalent or value at the time of receipt. He confirmed that if the fiancée purchased items or tools for wedding preparations with the dowry or part of it—according to customary practice—and the withdrawal was from the fiancé without any reason from the fiancée, or if the withdrawal was from her due to the fiancé's reasons; she has the option to either return the dowry or deliver what she purchased in its current state.