District Court finds April household support unpaid despite MAD 2,000 transfer

The District Court in Morocco found that Younes El Amrani had not paid April household support, despite transferring MAD 2,000 to Salma Bennani. Presiding judge RobTop delivered the judgment on 21 October 2026 in a claim seeking payment of MAD 2,000 in outstanding support.

The dispute was not whether the money reached Bennani, but which obligation it satisfied: the agreed monthly household contribution or a separate loan for scooter repairs. The judge treated the transfer as loan repayment and found El Amrani guilty of failing to pay household support.

The formal judgment does not expressly direct a further payment, set a deadline or specify any penalty.

The decisive evidence was the exchange immediately before the transfer. In her 4 April message, Bennani asked El Amrani to repay the scooter-repair loan the next day and expressly distinguished it from household support.

El Amrani replied that he would send MAD 2,000 on 5 April and address the rest on Sunday, without clarifying which obligation he meant. The judge interpreted that response in the context of Bennani’s request as acceptance of repayment on that date.

The bank receipt established the transfer’s amount and date, but its reference field was blank. The judgment found that El Amrani had no proof identifying the money as household support rather than loan repayment. His stated understanding of the payment therefore did not alter the outcome.

Bennani acknowledged receiving MAD 2,000 in April but maintained that it repaid money she had lent for scooter repairs. She said household support remained separately payable.

She also acknowledged that the parties had not explicitly agreed on a loan repayment date, and that El Amrani’s reply did not expressly identify the payment. Her position rested on reading his response alongside her specific request.

El Amrani said the 5 April transfer was the monthly household contribution and that he should not have to pay it twice. He accepted that his reply could be read as agreeing to repay the loan, but denied that this was what he meant.

He acknowledged the earlier loan, said there was no separately agreed repayment date and could not say when he would repay it. He also confirmed that he had no separate message or receipt identifying the transfer as support.

According to Bennani, the parties had lived separately in Rabat since March. Both described an agreement under which El Amrani would contribute MAD 2,000 each month to household expenses.

The judgment resolves the disputed purpose of this April transfer through the preceding messages and the absence of a payment reference. It does not cite a statutory provision or set out a broader rule for allocating payments where two debts are owed.