why they failed to determine his job or his income, and definitely,
his livelihood today is different than that of five years before.
- 2- The Court of First Instance decided on the previous alimony,
without hearing any evidence about the financial well-being of the
defendant.
- 3- The Court of First Instance decided on a house rent amount
although the defendant owns a house in Aamireya, Omdurman,
[and thus the lawyer] requested intervention.
- The appeal had been accepted earlier in form, and we ordered that the
appellee reply, through attorney/ Mohammed Ahmed Izzadin who
maintained that [original] decision was correctness hence, the request
becomes valid to be subjectively decided on.
In the subject matter of the appeal, after having reviewed the records
of the preliminary case and the ruling ensued, and all the reasons and
the elements supportive of the decision of the Public Court of Rabak,
I decide: In regards to the current alimony and its estimate, I see that
it is appropriate, according to the defendant’s confirmed income and
the needs of the children in custody, which necessitates upholding
this decision. In regard to previous alimony, the financial well-being
of the father is condition to be considered, and the period should not
exceed the past six months. on revising the decision by the Court of
First Instance, I found that it was decided that both previous and
forthcoming alimonies were to be considered payable as of the date of
the ruling; and this is incorrect. In addition to this, the Court of First
Instance did not check the financial well-being of the defendant.
Hence, with the agreement of my two honorable colleagues in the
circuit, I see upholding the parentage alimony and its estimated sums,
2