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
Mawahib Ibrahim Awad Alsied _ Appellee
No. A_S_SH 2015/207

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

Select target paragraph3