It is evident from his minutes of reply to the lawsuit that he acknowledged the marriage since ten years, and that they have no children. He also acknowledged that he did not escort her to the doctor during the ten years due to his work conditions, and that he used to drink bear but he has left it now. Further, he requested the refusal of the lawsuit. From the above-mentioned, it is evident that the lawsuit shall be described as a lawsuit of divorce for damage and not divorce for sterility or disease, so that the plaintiff did not request the registration of the lawsuit of divorce for sterility and did not allege the same. Therefore, the court shall not describe the lawsuit as divorce for sterility as an extraction from the statement contained in the lawsuit. The plaintiff is free to register the lawsuit depending on the reason in line with her interest. It is also evident from the minutes that her lawsuit of divorce for damage is built on two reasons; the first is her allegation that the defendant drinks beer and brings foreign people to the matrimonial dwelling, and the defendant acknowledged that he used to drink beer. However, the court did not ask him about the other part in the lawsuit, which is inviting foreign people to the matrimonial dwelling. There is no doubt that beer is one of the grievous sins, but a crime for which the legislator set forth as specific penalty. In this regard, I would like to express a jurisprudential opinion which considers divorcing the wife of the alcohol drinker as one of these penalties. Civ. P. S. /793/Challenge of Cassation/ 2014 AD (P. 4) (Cont'd) It is not disputed that the alcohol may lead the drinker to commit acts that are to be deemed as harmful and make granting divorce permissible, inter alia, the drinker may be led by his addiction to alcohol to drink inside the house, resulting in the violation of the sanctity of the house and the inconvenience to residents as well as misconduct that could have been drawn from the drinker. The drinker may insult, hit and break the pots, in addition to other reasons that make granting divorce permissible. The Court, pursuant to the provisions of the 28 Civ. table III attached to the Civil Procedure Act 1983 AD, should have obtained clarification from the Plaintiff concerning the harm that falls upon her as a result from the Defendant's drinking of alcohol, and should have cross-examined the Defendant for his response to the claim in this regard. If one of these damages was proven true, the Court shall deliver a judgment granting divorce. If, however, none of the above is proven to be true, the Court shall make it clear to the Plaintiff concerning her right to demand the oath to be taken from the Defendant on the denial of her claim, accordingly, the Court shall adjudicate the lawsuit in accordance with Articles 85 to 89 of the same table. The second ground on which the Plaintiff made her claim is that the Defendant did not accompany her to go to the doctor. To clarify such ground, she said that she was harmed because of the same, as she has been married for ten years and does not have children, and he refuses to go with her to the doctor.