her husband’s family. Also, what is mentioned in pages 16/20 of the minutes is not true. The two defense witnesses, who are sisters of the defendant, confirmed that the child subject of the custody is suffering from allergy. Also, it is not true that the defendant lives in the same apartment with her husband’s family, because the first witness testified in page 13 that the custodian lives in a separate room, with no connecting to the apartment occupied by the rest of the family. With regard of article (116) which specifies the conditions of the suitability of the custodian, that decreed a suitability reequipment in paragraph (2) that should not be married to stranger to her daughter unless the court decided otherwise. In this case the court judged in a favor of the mother, and that’s because the court preferred to consider in the benefit of the daughter who's suffering from allergy. According to the offered evidence and documents by the defense, which was not being objected to by prosecution, and because her best benefit is to be with her mother, who will be better suited to look after her, especially with the state of her ailment, we therefore, support the trial court decision and dismiss the appeal. Signature Sana Alfadil Khogali Judge of the Court of Appeal Signature Eman Moawia Ibrahim Judge of the Court of Appeal Signature Saif Eldeen Abd Alwhab Ali: Judge of the Court of Appeal Final Order: * Dismissing the Appeal and Uphold trial court decision. Signature Sana Alfadil Khogali Judge of the Court of Appeal Circle Chief