1991, and with reference to the case files and discussion of evidences, all this points to the contrary of the [claims above]. What the defense witnesses offered in the case doesn't support this as a fact; in page 9 in the minutes of the case. The first witness of defense stated that the age of the girl is three years; and denied the plaintiff knowledge. He confirmed that the [defendant] Appellee lives with her husband in the apartment, with his parents and his brothers who all live in the same apartment- page 12. And he stated that he has no idea if his daughter has a private room, but confirmed that the [defendant] is sick with asthma, but she attended a hospital for a short period, and healed fast. He explained that, in contrast, he is not living with his mother and brothers in a small apartment in a building in the ground floor level. [The plaintiff] stated that the defendant said she lives with her husband's family, who is to be considered as a stranger to his daughter, especially that there are males in the [apartment], who are the husband's brothers. [He points out that] she mentioned that the mother of the defendant, lives in a house consisting of two rooms and a veranda, and that she has three brothers, while in contrast, the family of the plaintiff are the child’s closest blood relation and her relatives, therefore it is more righteous for [the child] to be with the plaintiff's family. [The plaintiff states that] the two witnesses of defense refer in page 18/19 who are the sisters of defendant, mentioned that the she suffers from asthma, and that she is currently on medication, and that the female child is sick too. They claim this sickness makes the defendant unable to take care of the girl. The question here is; who takes care of the girl when the defendant in hospital? Her sickness is in contradiction to her ability to care for the child. The mother of the plaintiff is in good health and is free to care for the child and is better suited to care for the child. A defense document filed referred to the disease of the girl, offered by medical director of Al-hikma center. We have called the document issuer to testify, because the child is [actually] not sick, and this document was prepared for the purpose of [aiding] this lawsuit. The defendant didn't offer evidence to prove the plaintiff's mother is a frequent traveler, and there's no evidence for that, thus the plaintiff's mother is more suitable for the child. And [he] requested us to cancel the trial court’s decision, and instate the right custodian deemed as suitable. The Appellee responded that what is constant throughout the explanation of the lawsuit is that the child is three years old, and indeed according to the plaintiff explanation statement. According to the article of law of Personal Status stating that before the age seven years, the child has to be with his mother, and the Sharia applied a consideration for this matter. That is because, first it is in the benefit of the child to be with its mother, as it is a very sensitive period of time for a child and should be cared for by those closest relative to her, in addition to the child health ailment. It is true that the Appellee lives in same room with her husband’s family as the witnesses mentioned. [The Appellee] is saying that she lives in a separate room in the same building, and that there is nothing in the minute’s lawsuit to support [this claim]. [The Appellee] states the claim that she is suffering from asthma, and thus unable to take care of the child, is not true either, as she did not visit a hospital for four years. [The Appellee] is accordingly requesting the trial court decision to be upheld, and the appeal to be dismissed, the lawsuit [against her]. The lawsuit was filed as a cancellation of custody, as result of marrying a person considered to be a stranger to the child, but the court held its hearing about evidence of eligibility, which is not consistent with the request, as the request [should be] about evidence of suitability. The statements of witnesses came as the child subject of the custody is affected by asthma, and suffering from allergy. They filed a document which has been rejected, until the issuers of it were called to testify. But the defense offered another document from Alshab hospital, that the child was admitted to the hospital and was suffering from an allergy. The prosecution agreed to this document as evidence and did not object, thus the ailment of the girl subject of the custody has been proven by documentary evidence and testimonial evidence. Accordingly, even though the court discussed evidence of suitability, which is wrong and was not called for, it still proved her suitability and that the child is unwell and needs special caring in the custody of her mother. Replying to the reasons presented in the appeal, with regard of her residency, witnesses have confirmed that the custodian lives in a separate house, different from that of