{"id":16890,"date":"2026-01-14T14:10:19","date_gmt":"2026-01-14T12:10:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/?p=16890"},"modified":"2026-10-24T14:59:51","modified_gmt":"2026-10-24T12:59:51","slug":"law-and-women","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/law-and-women\/","title":{"rendered":"Egypt\u2019s Obedience Notices: How Family Law Is Used to Punish Women and Remove Their Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

It never occurred to <\/span>Basma Ibrahim<\/b> (a pseudonym) that the marital home would turn into a curse on her, used against her in the courts, after disputes with her husband, following which he abandoned the home for a whole year. During that period he did not send her or her child any maintenance, despite knowing that she had no source of income, which prompted her to file a lawsuit for spousal maintenance, another for child maintenance, and a further lawsuit to be enabled to live in the marital home. A ruling was issued in her favour for maintenance and another for joint residence, given that the marriage still stood. But after a while she was surprised to find her maintenance had stopped, and her lawyer informed her that a <\/span>disobedience ruling<\/span><\/a> had been issued against her, and consequently her spousal maintenance had been stopped.<\/span><\/p>\n

Basma, 32, who lives in a Cairo neighbourhood, was shocked, as no bailiff had ever knocked on the door of the flat bringing with him an <\/span>obedience notice<\/span><\/a>, but she soon discovered that her husband had claimed that she left the home without his permission while he was at work, and it was not mentioned that he was the one who had abandoned the home. He deliberately sent the notices to an address she had never lived in, designating it as the \u201c<\/span>house of obedience<\/span><\/a>\u201d, and so a court ruling was issued declaring her disobedient; the aim was not to restore married life, but to cancel the wife’s maintenance.<\/span><\/p>\n

The obedience notice is one of the forms of humiliation and gender-based violence entrenched in the social structure, and is popularly known as the “house of obedience”. Its legal basis goes back to Article (11) of Law<\/a> No. 100 of 1985, which stipulates that “if the wife refuses to obey the husband without right, the wife’s maintenance shall be stopped from the date of refusal, and the wife shall be considered to have refused without right if she does not return to the marital home after the wife calls on her to return by a notification served by a bailiff on her in person or on whoever represents her, and he must specify the residence in this notification, and the wife’s maintenance shall be forfeited after 30 days have passed from the day she was served with the obedience notice without her objecting to it”. This article is often used as a tool of institutional gender-based violence to subjugate married women and strip them of their economic rights.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Basma’s case reflects a procedural flaw that allows rulings to be issued without the knowledge of the affected party. Nevertheless, she did not give up: her lawyer filed an appeal against the ruling before the competent family court, but she later entered a spiral of postponed hearings, once for lack of notification and once because the husband’s address could not be traced. Months later, the husband’s lawyer suddenly appeared to request that the appeal be declared void on the grounds that notification had not been served within the ninety-day deadline, but the judge did not issue a ruling settling the case; he requested a memorandum and postponed the verdict for another two months, and she is still waiting for justice deferred to be done.<\/span><\/p>\n

The same suffering was endured by <\/span>Manal Abdel Hamid<\/b> (a pseudonym) because of obedience notices, although the situation was more complicated for her: a year ago she and her three children were thrown out of the marital home, located in Qalyubia Governorate, and only days later her husband married another woman in an unregistered customary marriage in the same home. When Manal, 42, filed maintenance lawsuits against her husband, she received the first obedience notice, and <\/span>objected<\/span><\/a> to it within the 30-day deadline. She then received three successive obedience notices, so she officially presented herself through a bailiff and issued a notification offering to enter the “house of obedience”, in an attempt to prove her good faith and so as not to lose her financial rights, which she had hoped would help her pay off the debts that had accumulated because her husband refused to support her and her children. But just one day later, she was thrown out of the home again, with no witnesses and no protection, and she filed a police report recording the situation that relied solely on her account.<\/span><\/p>\n

What happened to Manal was not an exception, but a direct result of the absence of fair mechanisms of proof: Manal could not prove her husband’s second marriage, which had not been officially registered, nor could she return with her children to the marital flat, and she soon lost her objection to the notice because she was unable to bring witnesses. This made her “disobedient” in the eyes of the law, which led to her maintenance being stopped and opened the door for the husband to file a disobedience lawsuit to recover what he had spent on his wife, with the possibility that she would lose her rights to maintenance, mut’a compensation and the deferred dowry, and lose her right to seek a judicial divorce on grounds of discord.<\/span><\/p>\n

The aim of the disobedience lawsuit was not to return her to a home from which her husband had previously expelled her, but to strip her of maintenance, as one of the forms of economic violence against women. Shortly afterwards she lost the case at first instance, then appealed, but the lawyer was absent from the appeal hearings, so the case was later struck off. She discovered that her lawyer had been colluding with the husband, who exploited legal loopholes to deprive her of all the rights she had refused to give up. In the end, she found no way out other than a khula lawsuit, as a last option within a closed system, leaving the marriage without financial rights and with debts that weighed heavily on her.<\/span><\/p>\n

Under the legal provisions in force, the man is granted an almost absolute ability to set in motion quick and inexpensive procedures (an obedience notice, a disobedience lawsuit), in contrast to the long, costly and complex legal routes imposed on women to defend their most basic rights. In this context, the wife’s good faith is not presumed; rather, she is automatically placed in the position of the accused, and the burden falls on her to prove violence or harm, the invalidity of the residence or the defectiveness of the notification, while a formal claim by the husband is enough to start a chain of economic penalties against her.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Years ago, <\/span>Reem Mohamed<\/b> (a pseudonym) almost paid with her life for domestic violence, when her husband beat her severely in front of their two young daughters, which drove her to flee with the two girls from the marital home in a Giza neighbourhood to her family’s home in Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate. Her family stopped her from filing a report against her husband at the police station, on the pretext of not causing the girls’ father to be imprisoned, and in the hope that the two would reconcile, which did not happen. The husband also refused to divorce Reem, 29, or to support their two daughters.<\/span><\/p>\n

Life between the couple soon turned into a conflict fought out in the halls of the family court, and the husband’s bargaining with her began: \u201cGive up the list and all your rights and I will divorce you\u201d. But Reem refused, and filed lawsuits for maintenance and for the recovery of the list of marital furnishings, obtaining court rulings in her favour. She then filed a lawsuit for divorce on grounds of harm, but lost it, and then received two successive obedience notices, to be punished for escaping domestic violence instead of the abuser being punished. A wife who leaves a dangerous home, refuses a coerced marital relationship or demands support may find that the law considers her attempt to survive “disobedience”; by contrast, there is no legal concept of a man’s disobedience, or of his refusal to provide support, his abandonment of his wife or his psychological violence.<\/span><\/p>\n

On her lawyer’s advice, Reem objected to the obedience notice before the 30-day period expired, and responded to it with a lawsuit for <\/span>divorce on grounds of irreconcilable discord and aversion<\/span><\/a>, but it went on for two years before it was decided in her favour and she was finally able to obtain her financial rights.<\/span><\/p>\n

The testimonies of the survivors who were interviewed, after they agreed to publication under pseudonyms, show how obedience notices and disobedience lawsuits have turned into systematic tools of economic and social violence against women. It is as if all of this is the result of a patriarchal legal and social system that punishes women for trying to survive and reproduces discrimination under the cover of legal legitimacy. This violence is not practised individually or exceptionally, but rests on legislative and procedural loopholes that place on her the burden of proof and of resisting the economic and gender-based violence inflicted on her, while granting the other party almost absolute power.<\/span><\/p>\n

In this context, the obedience notice does not become a means of restoring married life, but a legal pressure tool for stripping women of their economic rights, foremost among them maintenance, and forcing them to accept unjust settlements or to leave the marriage without any financial protection.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u0623\u0637\u0641\u0627\u0644 \u0628\u0644\u0627 \u0647\u0648\u064a\u0629 \u0641\u064a \u0645\u0635\u0631: \u062d\u064a\u0646 \u062a\u062a\u062d\u0648\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0628\u064a\u0631\u0648\u0642\u0631\u0627\u0637\u064a\u0629 \u0625\u0644\u0649 \u0639\u0646\u0641 \u0636\u062f \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0633\u0627\u0621<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n