As to the subject matter, and after reviewing the appeal procedures, we find the following: The Respondent is requesting a child support, alimony, and divorce alimony settlement, and a back-dated payment alimony. Article 66 of the personal law code, Year 1991 states “the financial status of the payee should be taken into account, as well as the current financial situation.” Did the Court take that into account? We find that the Appealing Applicant is employed as an administrative manager for Al Nono Export and Import Company; and a certificate that his monthly salary is 850 Pounds was presented, but the Court failed to acknowledge this as an evidence document; and it did not state clearly its acceptance or rejection of [the said document]. However, the Court mentioned that working in the commercial sector may sometimes bring a good profit, and not that much profit in other times, knowing that the Appealing Applicant is not the owner of the company. He is employed as an administrative manager only; he owns no share of the amount of profit the company may generate. It has also been established that the Appealing Applicant owns a house, and a private car for personal use. For all of the above, I see that the estimated payable amount was way higher than the income allowed, and it did not take into account his financial status. We are therefore compelled to intervene by rejecting the granted backdated alimony, and we issue a new decision to the effect of: Reducing the amount of child support to 250 Pounds a month; and reducing the amount towards child clothing to now be 150 Pounds each four passing months; and the amount of back-dated previous marriage alimony and child support alimony to 1500 Pounds; and 300 Pounds towards divorce settlement and expenses, and 1000 Pounds towards marriage Motaa alimony; that is, after the approval of the honorable members of this Court.