In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful Court of Appeal, White Nile State Sharia’ Circle In front of the Honorables: Salah Eldeen Mahgub Seid Ahmed................Chief Judge Ibrahim Mohammad Ali Altabagy.................Member Hamid Alameen Abdalla...........................Member Mohammed Ali Adam Appellant Against Mawahib Ibrahim Awad Alsied _ Appellee No. A_S_SH 2015/207 Judgement The General Court of Rabak, Personal Status Circle ruled on 09/11/2015 for Appellant Mawahib Ibrahim Awad Alsied against Respondent Muhammad Ali Adam, rejecting a Marriage Alimony of (300) Pounds per month, and an Alimony for clothing expenses, every six months (300) Pound. In addition, Children Alimony for his sons, Ismail (11) years old and Yousif (9) years old for the amount of (600) pounds to cover their needs, such as food and clothing every four months. Also, an amount of (400) Pounds divided equally, spent towards fees and schooling, according to governmental authority requests, and cost of medical treatment, based on received bills; the judgment is effective as of 09/11/2015. This judgement was unacceptable for lawyer Hawa Salih And Allah, and on behalf of the Appellant she filed this request, considering the amounts decided by court as too much, in light of the Appellant’s financial situation. Although the wife is not under the Obedience status of her husband, the court judged a Marriage Alimony, which requires that she should be under his Obedience status. [Thus, the lawyer] demanded the trial Court decision be reversed and a fair decision to be made. We accepted the request pro forma as it was made within the time-limit. We have informed the Respondent to respond by appearing at court, but she opted to stay silent, which makes the lawsuit officially ready for decision. We find that Article (66) Personal status of 1991 states that in cases of Alimony, the financial situation should be brought into consideration, based on the time and place [of the subject matter]. In this lawsuit the court relied on testimonies of two witnesses who have knew nothing about the nature of the Respondent’s work; they have made estimates based on their own incomes. the subject-matter court should investigate the Respondent’s