The appellant replied and ratified the marriage, though remaining insolent, persisting for a divorce for prejudice and rejection, and holding on to the differences. He called for refusal of her request. The trial court sent two arbitrators from his and her relatives and briefed them on their duties and had them to take the oath of carrying out the same and deposit a report. Both arbitrators deposited a report which in the opinion of the court was insufficient and requested to be completed. They did the same. The trial court in its judgment said that in pursuance of perusal of the arbitrators` report, they advised “that the plaintiff alleges that the defendant is ill-mannered and beats her, whereas he said it is provided in his statements that a discussion took place between him and the plaintiff at night. He broke the mobile telephone and some of her brothers came at night and he committed to buy a mobile and there was no problem between him and the plaintiff. He claimed for divorce on the ground of money”. The trial court said that there was no reply in respect of who was the cause of the mistreatment, and has therefore applied the provisions of Articles (162) and (164) of Personal Status Act of 1991 and delivered its judgment hereinabove referred to. Grounds I am in the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should have to be cancelled and reviewed, so as to apply the provisions of Article (164) of the Personal Status Act of 1991, including both Para (1) and (2) thereof. Nevertheless, both arbitrators have written two reports after having listened to the disputing parties; both reports were unproductive in accordance with Article (164) of the Personal Status Act. I did not find that they have exerted an effort in making a conciliation between the spouses as contained in Para (1) of Article (164). Further, their reports have not determined the extent of abuse by either party to the other as provided for in Para (2) of Article (164). The judge may apply the provision of Article (166) of the Personal Status Court in this area.I have found that both arbitrators, after having counted the moneys paid by the appellant, including dowry and other expenses, have undertaken to take a decision for the court judge.They did not determined the abuse and the abuser and whether the divorce will be with or without money. The judicial precedent issued by the Supreme Court under the review decision No. 3/2001 dated 29/01/2001 provides the following: “it is incorrect that the court accepts a report from two arbitrators which does not include a proposal for remedial of the problem and have not agreed upon a single opinion”. Both arbitrators have determined in their last report the amounts spent by the appellant in marriage, but failed to determine the abuser. If my colleagues in the Circuit agree, I am in the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should have to be cancelled and the file be returned for review of the case taking the memorandum as a guidance. Khalafallah Hussain Khalifa Supreme Court Judge 26/08/2014