<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>University of Tehran</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Law Quarterly</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>2588-5618</Issn>
				<Volume>43</Volume>
				<Issue>2</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2013</Year>
					<Month>08</Month>
					<Day>23</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>PAYING ALIMONY, AFTER THE DIVORCE</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle>PAYING ALIMONY, AFTER THE DIVORCE</VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>59</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>76</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">35270</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.22059/jlq.2013.35270</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>FA</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Mahdi</FirstName>
					<LastName>Movahhedi Mohebb</LastName>
<Affiliation>Assistant professor of Semnan University</Affiliation>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2013</Year>
					<Month>09</Month>
					<Day>23</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>The divorce is a unilateral obligation that exists by independent will of&lt;br /&gt;husband, but it does not mean that he can injury to the wife, by exert his&lt;br /&gt;right.&lt;br /&gt;In this essay we believe that if using of this right culminated in incurring&lt;br /&gt;of wife, the husband must redress it. In the direction of analysis of the&lt;br /&gt;fundaments of this subject, we study the content of 11th article of the&lt;br /&gt;abrogated family protection code and propose that its purport should be&lt;br /&gt;passed again, because it is not irreligious but it is very justly, useful and&lt;br /&gt;effective on decreasing of the disadvantages of the divorce. According to that&lt;br /&gt;article, the judge can bind every one of husband and wife to redress the&lt;br /&gt;damage of the other one by pay allowance on the condition that he was not&lt;br /&gt;guilty in divorce.</Abstract>
			<OtherAbstract Language="FA">The divorce is a unilateral obligation that exists by independent will of&lt;br /&gt;husband, but it does not mean that he can injury to the wife, by exert his&lt;br /&gt;right.&lt;br /&gt;In this essay we believe that if using of this right culminated in incurring&lt;br /&gt;of wife, the husband must redress it. In the direction of analysis of the&lt;br /&gt;fundaments of this subject, we study the content of 11th article of the&lt;br /&gt;abrogated family protection code and propose that its purport should be&lt;br /&gt;passed again, because it is not irreligious but it is very justly, useful and&lt;br /&gt;effective on decreasing of the disadvantages of the divorce. According to that&lt;br /&gt;article, the judge can bind every one of husband and wife to redress the&lt;br /&gt;damage of the other one by pay allowance on the condition that he was not&lt;br /&gt;guilty in divorce.</OtherAbstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">divorce</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Causing destruction</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">damage</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Redress</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Detriment</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">The family
protection code</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://jlq.ut.ac.ir/article_35270_d1a171983b233e67008bf79d8e64ebd1.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
