The Court of First Instance (Trial Court) has issued its decision and rejected the plaintiff’s case. On 20/04/2015, the advocate/ Yousuf Al Shareef El Sheikh Al Zain has submitted an objection by way of cassation against the judgment issued by the Court of Appeal on behalf of the appellant / Asia Mohammed Ahmed Qouz. The Appellant had received copy of the contested judgment on 09/04/2015, therefore, it is admitted in form, as it has been submitted within the legal time. We have previously admitted it in form under sections 159 -190 of the Civil Procedures Act of the year 1983, as the reasons of objections indicate that the respondent did not prove the consent he pleaded, yet, the appellant’s father had, through his attorney, admitted the incident of consent, permission and consultancy and agreed to revoke the marriage. The objection petition went on to state that, the Trial Court, in its decision to reject the case and to prove consent and consultancy and its reliance on the celebration spirit, as the appellant had come from Bram city, southern Darfur to Khartoum State, her reception and entry of matrimonial house is and evidence that can be rebutted. The matter requires a direct evidence, which is the statement of the attorney of the appellant’s father. Also, the Court has not discussed with the appellant the fact that she has attended the dinner party, the celebration and people come to congratulate, whether she consented or not. The appellant requested revocation of the judgment issued by the Court of Appeal, as confirming the decision issued by the Trial Court and requested that, a judgment shall be issued to revoke her marriage. Mr. Abdel Rahman Abdel Hai has replied on behalf of the first respondent, stating that, the appellant had initially raised the case as she does not have capacity to raise the case and the evidence submitted by the defence is sufficient to prove consent and concludes the issue of having sex as husband and wife on which the appellant had relied. The witnesses brought by the first defendant have shown and confirmed the issue in details as eyewitnesses, a matter that can not be rebutted by interpreting expressions or terms contrary to the spirit and supremacy of law.