In the name of the Merciful God National Supreme Court Personal Status Section Decision No 565/2015 Issued by the Supreme Court, the Personal Status Section, Second Cycle, on 21/9/2015 under the chairmanship of Mr. Al-Bushra Othman Saleh and members: Mr. Abdülhamid Mohammad Abdülhamid and Dr. Ahmed Mohammad Abdul Majid, Judges of the Supreme Court The file for appeal number 271/S/2015 has been submitted. Khartoum Court of Appeal and the case papers 320/K/2014 Khartoum Court, with registration number 284/appeal/2015 Appellant : Ali Saïd Al-Kadal Respondent : Alaouiya Al-Moubarak Al-Fadel The Judgment We have already accepted the appeal form and have asked for the response. When we receive the response, we shall publish the judgment, God willing. The facts of the lawsuit were summed up by the Appellant who filed case number 320/K/2014 before the Khartoum Personal Status Court, claiming that she has a son, Muhammad, aged 13, and she wants to bring him. His father took him to the United Arab Emirates. After hearing the response to the case and the evidence, the Khartoum Court ruled that the child should be given to his mother. The appeal was brought before the Khartoum Court of Appeal, which overturned the decision of the Court of First Instance. Against the decision of the latter, we have this appeal based on: 1- The Court of First Instance based its judgment on the presumption rather than on the evidence. 2- The defendant is limited to the natural qualities found in every human being and not to the qualities acquired. 3- The judgment was based on the testimony of witnesses who had not testified of the validity. 4- An appeal was filed concerning the evidence of validity, but the court did not take that into account. The response to the appeal was as follows: 1234- The appellant took the child to the United Arab Emirates. The decision of the Court of Appeal is correct while the General Court rendered a wrong decision. The respondent proved their validity by the testimony of witnesses. The witnesses confirmed that the appellant resides in the United Arab Emirates and does not have a woman who can take care of the child. Motives: After reviewing the file, including the record of the Court of First Instance, the permanent conflict is limited to who has custody of the child. And because the child was over the age of custody by the mother, the 1