previous alimony estimates, was also taken into account, but the court had to analyze the expenses of the
woman, dating back to the initial judgment which was in accordance with the provision of article 90 of
the law. Mr. Hammad had to pay £1,800 in leisure allowances because he estimated that the alimony
would be at £300, which also included an enjoyment expense for six months that the appellant had to pay
before the verdict.
• The court of the first instance had to investigate the appeal, in accordance with article 210 of the same
law, before it was considered in a month. In addition to this, the investigation can be finished before the
verdict, and only requires issuing one sentence at a time. In order to prove that the appellant had under
gone surgery for, the court allowed the appellant to hear her witness, Kamal al-Din, which was
documented in the Defense Act No. 1. This was done before assuming the full cost of the treatment. The
appellant was not able to bring her witness. She then informed the speaker that, every time she goes to
witnesses home, she is not there.
So I decided the following:
1 - Support the maintenance of spousal support and child support
2- That the current expenses of the child are effective from the date of judgment 20/11/2017.
3- Change the leisure expenditure to be 1800 pounds, for six months after his divorce in 22/12/2016.
4- Cancelation of the decision on the maintenance of the pension of emptiness.
5- Referring the court proceedings, the court of first instance should reconsider the expenditure of costs
and sums of treatment according to the memorandum.
6- Inform the parties.
Mahmoud Al-Taher Adam
General Court Judge