On consideration of the premises, they requested that the case should be quashed. In her comment on the reply to the claim as narrated by her attorney, the plaintiff adhered to her claim adding that the defendant was impotent and could perform with her sexual intercourse only after using steroids. With regard to the judicial precedent mentioned by the defendant`s attorney, the Personal Status Act for 1991 authorizes fault-based divorce and man`s infertility and impotence are deemed to be a harm. The court ordered to refer the defendant to a specialist doctor to advise whether or not the defendant is infertile. The medical commissioner`s letter stated that the defendant suffers from preliminary infertility resulting from severe weakness in sperms which lack mobility requiring unidentified period of treatment. The medical commissioner has advised in a subsequent letter that the committee considered that period of treatmentas to be more than one year. The court has therefore decided that the case is valid for adjudication. The defendant’s attorney requested that the medical officer who prepared the report should be summoned in order to have the report discussed with him. The plaintiff`s attorney protested against such request on the pretext that the report has been prepared by three medical officers and could be challenged only on the basis of forgery. He requested dismissal of such request. With the plaintiff’s adherence to the request, the court set the case for adjudication. On 21/12/2014, a Second degree Court of First Instances delivered its judgment irrevocably divorcing the plaintiff from the defendant on the basis of infertility with effect from today`s date 21/12/2014 and ordered her to count the legal period from Sharia point of view. The defendant rejected such judgment and challenged it under the appeal No. 222/2014 before the judge of the general court at Omdurman North Court of Personal status who delivered his judgment upholding the judgment issued by the 2nd degree court and cancelling the appeal along with charges thereof. The defendant was dissatisfied with such judgment and challenged it through his attorney under the appeal No. 168/2015 before Omdurman Appeal Court. On 14/07/2015 the court of appeal has issued its adjudication vide No. 120/2015 as follows: (1) Upholding the judgments of the lower courts.