In the name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful Rabak General Court A.S.SH/30/2015 22/2/2016 Appealing Applicant: Hisham Mohammed Ali Respondent: Manahil Adam Idress THE MEMORANDUM The Personal Status Department of Rabak Court issued a judgement to reject the claim of reunion and the revocation of custody, whereas the representative of the Appealing Applicant has filed an appeal against the judgment of the judge of the Second-Degree Rank. The Appeal is acceptable in form; the judgment was issued on the 11/10/2015 and the appeal was filed on 26/10/2015; therefore, it is accepted in form as it was presented within the legal permissible timeframe. As for the subject, the appeal is concerned with the reunion only, and it is not to include the revocation of custody, because the son (Wadhah) has passed the legal age binding him to a female custodian. Also, the appellee argues that witnesses brought in to the court by the Respondent did not offer superior evidence against the Appealing Applicant’s advantage, especially since the court considered the old age of his mother. That is, despite the fact that the court did not investigate the age and status of the Appealing Applicant’s mother, or whether the Applicant’s status is better suited than the respondent’s in parenting the son Wadhah. The Applicant made an argument based on the legal age, binding the son to a female custodian and requested on his summation of the appeal to reject the judgment of the court of the subject matter; and to issue a new judgment to include the child (Wadhah) onto his custody. The appellee responded through his lawyer in support of the decision of the court of the first instance, because the evidence presented by the appellant on the preference was sufficient to continue the custody of Waddah, who has sought to support this decision. In addition to this, the Tribunal explained that in the case concerning the son, Waddah exceeded the age limit of being in a woman’s custody The woman also abandoned the custody she had of her daughter, Doha, after her divorce with the appellant. This case favored the appellant as he denied any negligence towards his daughter. Responding to this decision, the appellant insisted on his claim. The court then heard evidence of “suitability and befitting” from the Respondent and heard evidence to the claim of negligence from the applicant, and subsequently the decision of the court was brought to the [this] Appeal procedure.