(2) Quashing the appeal. This judgment was followed by the defendant`s dissatisfaction who filed his present appeal vide no. 467/2015 under a petition submitted by his attorney on 14/09/2015 claiming therein for intervention in cancellation of the judgments delivered by lower courts and in taking the appropriate decision in this connection. Since the papers contained a document evidencing that the appellant was aware of the appealed judgment on 31/08/2015 through his attorney`s receipt of a copy thereof, the appeal was deemed to be submitted within the appointed time satisfying its legal status justifying its acceptance formally and was therefore acceptable formally. In terms of the subject matter, the appellant decried the preliminary judgments rendered by Omdurman North Court and the appellate judgment in respect of the above case up to the decision of the appeal court that they have been delivered in contravention of law from the application and interpretation point of view and was wrong for reasons the most important of which are as follows: 1. The Court of First Instance was mistaken when it rejected the investigation in the plea raised by the appellant that the appellee herself had an impediment preventing her from childbearing, which is in contravention of law. 2. The Court of First Instance was mistaken when it rejected to respond to the appellant`s request for summoning the medical officer who prepared the appellant`s report in order to discuss it with him. Such rejection is in contradiction with the provisions of Articles (30) and (31) of Evidence Law for 1994 and the violation of which invalidate the judgment. There was another incorrect decry submitted by the appellant in respect of the appellee`s disobedience, to which the court paid no attention. This also leads to an invalidity of the judgment. Such decry is entirely incorrect and should be rejected in whole as it is legally determined that the appeal for cassation shall not be accepted unless the appealed judgment is based on violation of law or a mistake in its application or interpretation along with invalidity of judgment or proceeding effect on ruling. It is also determined from the legal point of view in accordance with the provisions of Article (5) of Personal Status Act for 1991 that: (1) the wife may request divorce from her husband for a defect or chronic disease with which he is inflicted before the contract without her knowledge or happened after the contract, with which she is dissatisfied whether mental or organic defect or disease which is hopelessly or hopefully to be cured after the lapse of one year and as such cannot stay with him except for harm. (3) Where the defect or disease is hopefully to be cured before the lapse of one year, the Court shall give the ailing party a term of one year before divorce.