.jpg?20260314')
A man has been fined BD50 for calling his former wife ‘trash’, ‘a lunatic’ and ‘psychologically disturbed’ through WhatsApp messages.
After four rulings and three appeals, the Bahraini defendant received a final verdict from Bahrain’s top court, finding him guilty of harassing the Bahraini woman.
He was convicted of intentionally causing disturbance to his ex-wife, insulting her honour and standing by making claims against her that bore no relation to a real-life event, and ‘misuse of a wired or wireless telecommunication device’.
Last year, the woman lodged a complaint against the man, who was fined BD50 by the Public Prosecution, which simply issued a judicial order instead of referring the case to a court.
He objected to the fine at the Lower Criminal Court, which ruled to drop the charges and pretend ‘as if they never were’.
However, the Public Prosecution appealed his acquittal at the High Criminal Appeals Court, which overturned the Lower Criminal Court’s decision and once again ruled to fine him BD50.
Finally, he took to the Cassation Court, which ultimately upheld the prosecution’s initial penalty.
The initial verdict stated that the victim had called the appellant and tried to communicate with him through WhatsApp, after which he threw obscenities at her that ‘targeted her reputation’.
The Bahraini defendant’s attorney made numerous arguments in an attempt to get the case dismissed, claiming that the female victim was an unreliable witness and accusing her of filing a malicious report.
“The allegations have no truth in them, and the accounts of the event all come from the victim – the appellant’s ex-wife,” read a summary of the defence’s arguments before the three courts.
“She was the one who volunteered and called him. Anything that happened following that was due to her provocation.
“There are disputes between the two that have reached the Sharia courts, as she has been depriving him of visiting or seeing his son due to her desire to re-marry him and also get money from him.
“That, on its own, is undeniable evidence of the maliciousness of her report. She also delayed reporting the incident, and no clear crime was committed as per her account.”
The lawyer added that the conviction was purely based on her testimony, and declared that no evidence was provided other than a text message where she asked him to promise not to message her.
Despite the vigorous defence, the Cassation Court ruled to uphold the High Criminal Appeals Court’s ruling, and the Public Prosecution’s before it.
“There is enough proof that the appellant used a wireless telecommunication method to commit crimes – namely, chat records,” judges concluded.
zainab@gdnmedia.bh
&uuid=(email))