The reasons put forward by the attorney in her request are as follows: Her client submitted a Sharia Plaint against the defendant that she had traveled to the city of Neyala taking with her the plaintiff’s children on 16/5/2015. Due to this, she impeded his ability to care, provide guidance and taking charge of the upbringing of children, whose ages were 7, 4 and 2 years consecutively. The attorney also pointed out that there was an alimony case by the number 151/2015 that was judged in, and in which the ruling included payment of rent for the appellee’s house in Rabak-Town. Also, the appellant’s request to the court was to obligate the appellee to stay as a resident in Rabak-Town but the Court of First Instance dismissed the request. The Attorney sees that the dismissal as breaching the stipulation in Article (118) of the Personal Status Code of 1991, and that results in depriving the appellant of assuming his responsibilities as a father towards the children’s supervision and upbringing. Added to that, the appellee did not get the permission [of the father] to travel to Neyal City in the company of the children. Hence, the attorney requests intervention to revoke the decision appealed against. On the subject matter of the case, and after reviewing the submitted complaint, and the contested decision, we find that the same court had ruled in a different lawsuit, denying the father custody of the same children. The Court of First Instance maintained that the children be entrusted with her, and also ruled that she received an alimony for mothering the children, and receive an amount for house rent, and clothes allowance. It is established that the appellee has been divorced by the appellant, and thus the decision of the court of First Instance to dismiss the complaint is in breach of the text of Article (119) of the Personal Status Code of 1991, as it stipulates that a custodian mother is not allowed to travel within the country accompanied by the children 2