{"id":47996,"date":"2026-09-12T03:54:28","date_gmt":"2026-09-12T03:54:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/?p=47996"},"modified":"2026-09-12T04:04:43","modified_gmt":"2026-09-12T04:04:43","slug":"dubai-court-clears-way-for-new-divorce-case-following-foreign-court-rejection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/index.php\/2026\/09\/12\/dubai-court-clears-way-for-new-divorce-case-following-foreign-court-rejection\/","title":{"rendered":"Dubai Court Clears Way for New Divorce Case Following Foreign Court Rejection."},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The woman maintained before the Dubai courts that the adverse effects had not ended with the conclusion of the proceedings abroad. Instead, she claimed that the situation persisted and became increasingly serious even after those foreign legal proceedings had come to an end.<\/h4>

\u00a0<\/p>

Dubai Court Clarifies When Divorce-for-Harm Claims Can Be Refiled in the UAE<\/h2>

Dubai\u2019s highest court has issued an important ruling concerning divorce proceedings involving allegations of marital harm, confirming that a wife may bring a new claim before the UAE courts even where an earlier divorce case between the same parties was rejected by a foreign court.<\/p>

The ruling establishes that an unsuccessful case in another country does not necessarily prevent the UAE courts from examining a subsequent claim. Where the circumstances giving rise to the alleged harm have continued, worsened, or emerged again after the conclusion of the foreign proceedings, the courts in Dubai may consider the new case on its own merits.<\/p>

The decision arose from a personal status dispute involving a woman who approached the Dubai courts seeking a divorce on the basis of harm allegedly caused by her husband. In addition to requesting termination of the marriage, she sought financial relief and orders concerning the care and custody of the couple\u2019s child.<\/p>

According to the case, the wife claimed that her husband had effectively abandoned his responsibilities toward the family. She alleged that he had failed to provide her with the financial support required for the household and had left her responsible for expenses associated with maintaining the home and caring for their child.<\/p>

She further maintained that these circumstances had made continuation of the marital relationship intolerable. Her position was that the alleged misconduct was not an isolated historical event but represented an ongoing situation that continued to affect her even after earlier litigation had ended.<\/p>

Previous proceedings outside the UAE<\/h3>

The dispute had an additional complication because the wife had previously pursued legal proceedings involving the marriage in both Sudan and Egypt.<\/p>

The husband relied on those earlier cases when challenging the proceedings in Dubai. His argument was, in substance, that the dispute had already been placed before courts outside the UAE and that the wife should not be permitted to reopen the same matter before another court.<\/p>

From his perspective, allowing the Dubai proceedings to continue would amount to reconsidering an issue that had already been addressed through foreign litigation. He therefore challenged the Dubai court\u2019s ability to hear the wife\u2019s new application.<\/p>

The wife, however, drew a distinction between the matters considered in the earlier proceedings and the circumstances forming the basis of her claim in Dubai. She argued that the situation within the marriage had not remained unchanged following the foreign judgments.<\/p>

Her case was that the alleged mistreatment and resulting harm had persisted and, in some respects, become more serious after the foreign proceedings had come to an end. As a result, she maintained that the Dubai proceedings were not simply an attempt to repeat an unsuccessful case based on an identical set of circumstances.<\/p>

Instead, she argued that subsequent developments had created a new basis for seeking judicial relief.<\/p>

Meaning of divorce for harm under UAE law<\/h3>

The dispute concerns a form of divorce commonly described as divorce for harm, or darar<\/em>. It is a fault-based route through which a wife may seek dissolution of a marriage where the conduct of her husband has caused harm of such a nature that continuing the marital relationship is no longer reasonably possible.<\/p>

This mechanism is particularly significant in circumstances where a Muslim woman does not have a contractual right to end the marriage unilaterally.<\/p>

Under the UAE\u2019s personal status framework, a wife seeking this form of relief is generally required to establish the existence of harm rather than merely expressing a desire to end the marriage. The court must consider whether the alleged conduct is sufficiently serious to make the continuation of married life impracticable.<\/p>

The concept of harm is not confined to one particular type of behaviour. Depending on the facts of an individual case, it may encompass conduct such as abandonment, failure to provide financial maintenance, abusive treatment, or other behaviour that causes serious prejudice to the wife and makes the continuation of the relationship difficult or impossible.<\/p>

The assessment therefore depends significantly on the circumstances presented to the court.<\/p>

In this particular dispute, the wife relied on allegations that her husband had withdrawn from his obligations toward her and their child. She claimed that she had been left to bear household and childcare costs without adequate financial assistance from him.<\/p>

Such allegations are relevant to the legal question because financial maintenance is among the responsibilities that may arise from the marital relationship. A sustained failure to meet those responsibilities can, depending on the evidence and circumstances, form part of a broader claim that the wife has suffered marital harm.<\/p>

Husband argues that the dispute had already been decided<\/h3>

The husband\u2019s principal objection was based on the existence of the earlier proceedings in Sudan and Egypt.<\/p>

He argued that the wife should not be allowed to pursue another action in Dubai after her previous attempts had been unsuccessful. His position effectively relied on the principle that matters already determined through judicial proceedings should not simply be reopened through a new case in another jurisdiction.<\/p>

The issue before the Dubai courts was therefore not limited to whether the wife had suffered harm. The court also had to determine whether the previous foreign decisions prevented it from examining the allegations now presented before it.<\/p>

This distinction became central to the court\u2019s reasoning.<\/p>

The Dubai court concluded that the earlier proceedings did not automatically deprive the UAE judiciary of jurisdiction to examine the subsequent claim. The existence of previous foreign litigation was not, by itself, sufficient to prevent a fresh action where the factual basis of that action involved harm that had continued or occurred again.<\/p>

The court therefore treated the alleged continuation of the harmful conduct as legally significant.<\/p>

Continuing harm can create a new cause of action<\/h3>

One of the key principles emerging from the judgment is the distinction between repeating an old claim and bringing a new claim based on later developments.<\/p>

A previous divorce action may concern circumstances that existed at the time it was filed and decided. If those circumstances subsequently change, or if the alleged harmful behaviour continues beyond the period considered by the earlier court, the legal situation may also change.<\/p>

In such circumstances, a later claim is not necessarily identical to the original case.<\/p>

The Dubai court\u2019s ruling indicates that a wife may rely on continuing or renewed harm to establish a fresh basis for judicial consideration. The fact that a foreign court previously rejected a divorce application does not mean that the wife is permanently prevented from approaching the UAE courts if materially different or subsequent circumstances arise.<\/p>

This approach recognizes that marital relationships are continuing legal relationships and that the facts affecting them can develop over time.<\/p>

For example, conduct that was already occurring during an earlier case may continue after judgment. Alternatively, circumstances may deteriorate or new incidents may occur. If the later circumstances are capable of independently demonstrating that continuation of the marriage has become untenable, they may provide a basis for a subsequent claim.<\/p>

The court\u2019s reasoning therefore focuses on the nature and timing of the alleged harm rather than simply on the existence of a previous lawsuit.<\/p>

Foreign judgment does not automatically close the door<\/h3>

The decision is significant because it clarifies the effect that a foreign judgment can have on subsequent proceedings in Dubai.<\/p>

A foreign court\u2019s rejection of a divorce application does not necessarily operate as an indefinite prohibition against future proceedings in the UAE. The earlier decision may remain relevant to the history of the dispute, but it does not automatically eliminate the possibility of a later claim founded upon circumstances that developed afterward.<\/p>

This does not mean that a party can repeatedly bring identical claims without limitation.<\/p>

A claimant cannot simply repackage the same allegations and expect a court to reconsider facts that have already been conclusively determined. The important factor is whether the later proceedings are genuinely founded on continuing, renewed, or otherwise subsequent circumstances.<\/p>

Consequently, evidence remains essential.<\/p>

A wife seeking to rely on continuing harm would need to demonstrate that the circumstances forming the basis of the new application actually persisted or arose again. The court must be able to distinguish between a legitimate subsequent cause of action and an attempt to relitigate an issue that has already been finally determined.<\/p>

Financial and family-related claims<\/h3>

The proceedings also involved claims connected with the couple\u2019s child and the financial consequences of the marital dispute.<\/p>

The wife sought relief relating to custody as well as financial matters. Such claims can become particularly important where one spouse alleges that the other has failed to contribute to the family\u2019s expenses.<\/p>

Her allegations included the assertion that she had been left to meet household and childcare costs without adequate support from her husband.<\/p>

The broader dispute therefore extended beyond the question of whether the marriage should be dissolved. It also involved the financial and parental consequences arising from the breakdown of the relationship.<\/p>

Personal status proceedings in the UAE can involve several interconnected issues, including marriage, divorce, maintenance and matters concerning children. The court\u2019s consideration of the alleged harm may therefore have implications for the wider family dispute.<\/p>

Importance of evidence concerning later events<\/h3>

The ruling also highlights the importance of identifying the precise circumstances on which a subsequent divorce application is based.<\/p>

Where an earlier foreign case exists, the timing of the alleged harm becomes particularly important. A claimant seeking to establish a fresh cause of action would need to show that the relevant conduct did not simply form part of the same historical circumstances that had already been considered.<\/p>

Instead, the claimant would need to demonstrate that the harmful circumstances continued after the earlier proceedings or that further events occurred subsequently.<\/p>

This distinction can be crucial in determining whether a new case is legally permissible.<\/p>

The court\u2019s approach effectively recognizes that a judgment cannot necessarily predict or determine every future development within a continuing marital relationship. If circumstances materially change after a previous case has concluded, those later developments may require separate judicial consideration.<\/p>

Broader significance of the judgment<\/h3>

The decision provides useful clarification for parties involved in cross-border family disputes.<\/p>

Families with connections to more than one country may find themselves involved in legal proceedings in different jurisdictions. A divorce application rejected in one country can create uncertainty about whether a spouse may later seek relief elsewhere, particularly where the circumstances of the marriage have changed.<\/p>

The Dubai ruling makes clear that the answer depends substantially on the basis of the later claim.<\/p>

Where the second case merely duplicates the first, the existence of an earlier judgment may present a significant obstacle. However, where the alleged marital harm has continued, intensified, or re-emerged following the earlier proceedings, the later circumstances may constitute a distinct basis for seeking relief.<\/p>

The judgment consequently draws a line between impermissible repetition and legitimate proceedings based on subsequent events.<\/p>

What the ruling means for future cases<\/h3>

The practical effect of the decision is that a previous unsuccessful divorce case does not necessarily end every future opportunity to seek a divorce on grounds of harm.<\/p>

A wife may potentially approach the Dubai courts with a new claim if she can establish that the circumstances giving rise to the alleged harm remained present or developed further after the foreign proceedings ended.<\/p>

However, the ruling should not be understood as creating an automatic right to reopen a previously rejected divorce case. The claimant still has to establish the legal and factual foundation for the new proceedings.<\/p>

The evidence must demonstrate that the later claim is based on genuine continuing or renewed harm rather than an attempt to challenge the outcome of the earlier litigation indirectly.<\/p>

The distinction is therefore both factual and legal: the court must determine whether there is a meaningful difference between what was previously decided and what is now being alleged.<\/p>

Conclusion<\/h3>

The judgment by Dubai\u2019s highest court represents an important clarification of how continuing marital harm may be treated when a spouse has previously pursued unsuccessful proceedings outside the UAE.<\/p>

The court confirmed that a foreign dismissal does not automatically prevent a wife from seeking divorce in Dubai at a later stage. Where the alleged harm persists, worsens, or occurs again after the conclusion of the earlier proceedings, the subsequent circumstances may provide a new basis for legal action.<\/p>

At the centre of the case was the wife\u2019s allegation that her husband had abandoned his responsibilities, failed to provide appropriate maintenance, and left her carrying the financial burden of household and childcare expenses. Although she had previously pursued proceedings in Sudan and Egypt, she maintained that the situation had continued to deteriorate afterward.<\/p>

The Dubai court accepted the significance of that distinction and determined that the previous foreign decisions did not, by themselves, prevent the UAE courts from examining the later claim.<\/p>

The ruling therefore emphasizes an important principle in personal status litigation: the conclusion of an earlier case does not necessarily determine circumstances that arise afterward<\/strong>. Where new or continuing harm can be properly established, the courts may consider whether those later developments amount to an independent cause of action.<\/p>

For spouses involved in international family disputes, the decision underscores the importance of documenting developments that occur after earlier proceedings. The nature, timing and continuity of alleged harm can all become relevant when determining whether a subsequent divorce application represents a genuinely new claim or merely a repetition of an earlier case.<\/p><\/div><\/section>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/header>
\u00a0<\/div>

Legal Perspective on the Dubai Court\u2019s Ruling<\/h2>

\u00a0<\/p>

Dr Hasan Elhais, Legal Consultant at Amal Al Rashedi Lawyers and Legal Consultants, said the recent ruling provides an important clarification on how UAE courts may approach divorce applications based on continuing or renewed marital harm.<\/p>

According to Dr Elhais, the judgment demonstrates that the dismissal of an earlier divorce application in another country does not necessarily prevent a spouse from subsequently seeking relief through the UAE courts. The legal position may be different where circumstances have changed after the conclusion of the earlier proceedings and the claimant is able to establish that the alleged harm has continued or occurred again.<\/p>

The distinction, he explained, lies in whether the subsequent proceedings are genuinely based on circumstances that developed after the earlier case rather than being an attempt to revisit the same allegations that were already determined by a foreign court.<\/p>

Previous rejection does not necessarily end future proceedings<\/h3>

Dr Elhais noted that an earlier unsuccessful divorce claim should not automatically be interpreted as creating a permanent restriction on future proceedings in the UAE.<\/p>

A foreign court may have reached its decision based on the evidence, circumstances and allegations that were presented to it at a particular point in time. Where the marital relationship subsequently deteriorates or the conduct complained of continues, the factual circumstances may no longer be identical.<\/p>

In that situation, the existence of an earlier judgment does not necessarily mean that every future claim involving the same marriage must fail.<\/p>

The legal consultant emphasized that the claimant would still have to establish the circumstances relied upon in the new case. Merely pointing to dissatisfaction with the outcome of an earlier foreign proceeding would not be sufficient. What matters is whether there is evidence of continuing, renewed or subsequent harm capable of supporting a fresh legal claim.<\/p>

This distinction is particularly important in family disputes because the circumstances of a marriage can change considerably over time.<\/p>

Focus on the circumstances existing at the time of the new case<\/h3>

Dr Elhais said the ruling reinforces the importance of examining the present condition of the marital relationship.<\/p>

Rather than treating an earlier judgment as necessarily resolving every future development between the parties, UAE courts may consider the circumstances that exist when a new application is brought before them.<\/p>

This approach recognizes that a marriage is an ongoing relationship and that the conduct of the spouses can change after earlier litigation has ended.<\/p>

For example, a disagreement or failure to provide support that existed during previous proceedings may continue afterward. In other situations, additional incidents may occur that were not part of the earlier case. If those later circumstances are sufficiently serious and can be supported by evidence, they may become relevant to a subsequent application.<\/p>

The key question, therefore, is not simply whether the parties have previously litigated against each other. The court must also consider whether the factual foundation of the later case is materially different from the circumstances previously examined.<\/p>

Importance of proving continuing harm<\/h3>

The ruling should not be understood as permitting parties to repeatedly bring identical claims whenever an earlier case has been unsuccessful.<\/p>

Dr Elhais stressed the importance of demonstrating the existence of continuing or renewed harm. A claimant seeking to rely on a subsequent cause of action must be able to show that the circumstances relied upon genuinely persisted, intensified or arose again.<\/p>

Evidence can therefore play a decisive role.<\/p>

The court may need to determine when the alleged conduct occurred, whether it continued after the foreign proceedings, and whether subsequent events materially altered the circumstances between the spouses.<\/p>

This means that the timing of events can be just as important as the nature of the alleged misconduct.<\/p>

If the conduct relied upon occurred entirely before the earlier foreign judgment and was already considered by that court, a subsequent UAE claim may raise different legal issues from one based on events that happened afterward.<\/p>

Where later developments are supported by credible evidence, however, the court may have grounds to consider whether those developments amount to a new cause of action.<\/p>

Present circumstances can carry legal significance<\/h3>

According to Dr Elhais, the decision also illustrates the importance UAE courts place on the evidence available to them concerning the current state of the marital relationship.<\/p>

Family disputes often evolve over time. A situation that may have been manageable at one stage can become substantially more serious later. Likewise, circumstances that were previously disputed may continue in a way that affects the parties differently as time passes.<\/p>

For that reason, later events can have independent legal significance.<\/p>

A spouse who alleges that marital harm has continued after earlier litigation may therefore need to demonstrate more than the existence of the original dispute. The claimant must establish how the situation developed and why the later circumstances justify judicial intervention.<\/p>

The court\u2019s role is consequently not limited to examining the historical relationship between the parties. It may also need to assess the current factual situation and determine whether the evidence establishes grounds for the relief being requested.<\/p>

Implications for international family disputes<\/h3>

The legal principle is particularly relevant to families whose personal and legal affairs extend across national borders.<\/p>

International marriages can give rise to proceedings in more than one jurisdiction. A couple may have connections to different countries, maintain assets or residences in separate jurisdictions, or become involved in family proceedings in multiple legal systems.<\/p>

In such circumstances, a decision from one country may become an important consideration in later litigation elsewhere.<\/p>

However, Dr Elhais explained that the rejection of a claim by a foreign court does not automatically eliminate a spouse\u2019s ability to seek protection through the UAE judicial system where there are subsequent circumstances that independently justify a new claim.<\/p>

The distinction between a previous claim and a later cause of action can therefore become particularly important in cross-border disputes.<\/p>

The existence of foreign litigation does not necessarily provide a complete answer to a later UAE case. The court may have to examine the basis of the new proceedings and determine whether the claimant is relying on facts that arose or continued after the earlier judgment.<\/p>

Cross-border cases require careful examination<\/h3>

Cases involving several jurisdictions can be legally complex because the parties may have already presented evidence and arguments before courts outside the UAE.<\/p>

A foreign judgment may form part of the background to the dispute, but the circumstances surrounding a later UAE application must still be examined carefully.<\/p>

According to Dr Elhais, the Dubai ruling demonstrates that the courts are capable of distinguishing between a matter that has already been conclusively addressed and a subsequent dispute arising from later developments.<\/p>

This distinction protects the principle of finality while also recognizing that circumstances can change.<\/p>

The principle of finality generally seeks to prevent parties from repeatedly litigating the same issue. At the same time, applying that principle too broadly could mean that a spouse would have no legal avenue to address serious harm that develops after the earlier case has concluded.<\/p>

The ruling therefore reflects a balance between those competing considerations.<\/p>

The significance of new facts<\/h3>

One of the most important points arising from Dr Elhais\u2019s comments is the potential legal importance of new facts.<\/p>

Where a claimant can establish that circumstances have materially changed, those developments may affect whether a subsequent action can be considered independently.<\/p>

New facts could include continuing conduct, additional incidents, changes in the parties\u2019 circumstances, or other developments that were not part of the factual record considered in the previous proceedings.<\/p>

The significance of such facts will depend on the individual case and the evidence presented. A change in circumstances does not automatically guarantee a particular outcome.<\/p>

Nevertheless, where the alleged harm continues or is renewed, the later events may provide the factual foundation necessary for a fresh application.<\/p>

This is particularly relevant to allegations involving abandonment or failure to provide financial support. If such conduct continues after an earlier case has ended, the continuing nature of the alleged misconduct may become an important consideration.<\/p>

Evidence remains central to any new claim<\/h3>

Dr Elhais\u2019s comments also highlight that the ability to bring a subsequent claim should not be confused with the ability to automatically succeed in that claim.<\/p>

A claimant must still satisfy the applicable legal requirements and establish the allegations through appropriate evidence.<\/p>

The court may consider the circumstances surrounding the marriage, the conduct of both parties, the history of previous proceedings and the events that allegedly occurred afterward.<\/p>

The quality and relevance of the evidence can therefore determine whether the later claim is distinguishable from the earlier proceedings.<\/p>

A claimant who simply repeats allegations previously rejected may face a very different situation from someone who can demonstrate that the circumstances materially changed after the foreign judgment.<\/p>

The distinction between those two situations is central to understanding the significance of the ruling.<\/p>

A practical message for spouses involved in litigation<\/h3>

For individuals involved in cross-border matrimonial disputes, the ruling carries an important practical lesson.<\/p>

The conclusion of proceedings in one jurisdiction does not necessarily mean that every subsequent development will be legally irrelevant. If circumstances continue to deteriorate, parties may need to maintain appropriate records and evidence concerning events that take place after the earlier litigation.<\/p>

This may become important if later proceedings are initiated in another jurisdiction.<\/p>

At the same time, parties should understand that the existence of new allegations alone is not necessarily enough. The later claim must have a genuine factual and legal foundation, and the claimant must be able to demonstrate how the circumstances differ from those previously considered.<\/p>

Broader legal significance<\/h3>

The ruling may therefore have wider relevance beyond the particular dispute before the Dubai courts.<\/p>

It provides an illustration of how continuing causes of action can be treated in family-law disputes where earlier litigation has taken place outside the UAE.<\/p>

The decision recognizes that a previous judgment is based on the circumstances presented to the court at that time. Where later events materially change the situation, those developments may require separate consideration.<\/p>

Dr Elhais\u2019s interpretation underscores the importance of looking at the present reality of the marital relationship rather than relying exclusively on the historical outcome of an earlier case.<\/p>

In this context, the continuing nature of alleged harm can become a decisive factor.<\/p>

Conclusion<\/h3>

Dr Hasan Elhais\u2019s comments underline the significance of the Dubai court\u2019s approach to subsequent divorce claims based on marital harm.<\/p>

The ruling does not mean that a spouse can disregard an earlier foreign judgment or automatically restart proceedings in the UAE. Rather, it establishes that an earlier dismissal does not necessarily prevent a later claim where the factual circumstances have materially changed.<\/p>

Where harm continues, is renewed or becomes more serious after the conclusion of foreign proceedings, those developments may provide a separate basis for seeking relief before the UAE courts, subject to the claimant establishing the relevant facts and satisfying the applicable legal requirements.<\/p>

The decision is particularly significant for cross-border family disputes because spouses may have previously pursued legal remedies in several countries. In such cases, the existence of an earlier foreign decision must be considered alongside the circumstances forming the basis of the new UAE proceedings.<\/p>

Ultimately, the ruling highlights the importance of distinguishing between an attempt to relitigate an old dispute and a genuine claim arising from later events. Where credible evidence establishes that marital harm has persisted or newly occurred, the UAE courts may assess those circumstances independently.<\/p>

As Dr Elhais\u2019s analysis suggests, the legal significance of a divorce claim cannot always be determined solely by what happened in an earlier case. In family disputes involving continuing relationships and evolving circumstances, developments occurring after a previous judgment may themselves become relevant to the rights and remedies available to the parties.<\/p><\/div><\/section>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Dubai court has allowed a fresh divorce petition to proceed after a similar case was previously dismissed by a foreign court, ruling that the earlier decision does not prevent the new claim from being considered under the UAE\u2019s legal framework.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":46261,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"post_template":[],"top_category":[],"class_list":["post-47996","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uae","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47996","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47996"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47996\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48001,"href":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47996\/revisions\/48001"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/46261"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47996"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47996"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47996"},{"taxonomy":"post_template","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_template?post=47996"},{"taxonomy":"top_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insider18.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/top_category?post=47996"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}