The Judicial Authority
Kosti General Court
Appellant: - Alrayh Taha Yousif
Opponent: - Manal Altayb Ahmed
The Decision
On 1/4/ 2018 the District Court /Second Grade Magistrate, for family affairs issued a judgment on
the case No /303 /2018 for the benefit of the claimant Manal Altayb Ahmed Ali. The judgment
ordered the defendant to pay the claimant wife house hold expenses amounting to 600 (Six hundred
SDG), dressing allowance of 400 SDG every 6 months as well as a housing allowance of 300
monthly. The court ordered the defendant to effect payment and authorized the claimant to indebt
the defendant with the same.
On the 10th of April 2018 Advocate Eisa Abdallah Eisa filed an appeal on behalf of the appellant,
which was accepted because it was submitted within the time limits provided for articles 159/174 of
the Code of Civil Procedure of 1983 (changes in 2009).
The reasons expressed in the appeal memo could be summed as follows;
The court of First Instance ignored the defendant defense regarding the plaintiff equating the
matrimonial home without a legal cause. He argued more over that the court of First Instance
should order the defendant to submit evidence to prove this allegation. Furthermore, the
abandonment of husband to the wife has nothing to do with the family expenses. The abandonment
is a Shariah Rule Provided for in a Qur’anic verse, provided for in Aia 34 of Surat Alnisa. That
verse in essence gives the husband the right to advice the wife, abandon her in bed and lash her. But
if the wife obeys the husband, he doesn’t have these rights. More over the appellant has another
wife and children residing with him. He added that in such situation the wife may have the right to
sue the plaintiff only for injury and damage. For these reasons he asked the general court to squash
the judgment the subject matter of appeal and issue a decision dismissing the case.
The appellee replied saying that her husband had married another women, and that she agreed to
live with her. However, her husband abandoned her and did not sleep with her. She lived with her
husband’s family for seven months, during which her husband incurred her expenses. She then
returned to her relatives; however that act didn’t result in the deprivation of her right to family
expenses according to Articles 77/79 of the family law in 1009 on her personal status. She was an
obedient wife and she never left the house without a legitimate excuse. This is why she is asking us
to support the judgment and to cancel the appeal.
The facts of the case of alimony is based on the appellant being an obedient woman and that she
gave birth to children during the course of her marriage to him. She asked for; 100 SDG pounds for
daily living expenses, 400 SDG pounds for clothing allowances and 500 SDG pounds for her
housing allowance. The defendant replied to the suit by admitting his marriage to the plaintiff, but
denied the fact that the plaintiff was obedient to him, adding that she left their house without any
legitimate reason and his consent. He also stated that the amount the plaintiff had requested for was
exaggerated and suggested he willingness to pay 20 SDG per day as her living and clothing
expenses as she claimed, including 50 SDG per month as her housing allowance. He abandoned the
plaintiff at her request
The court of First Instance asked the opponent to submit evidence to prove the reason of her leaving
the matrimonial home and the amount of expenses required from the appellant. The opponent failed
to prove the reason for leaving the house and asked for the oath of the appellant on the
abandonment. The appellant admitted that he had abandoned the opponent, thus the first Instance.
The court passed its judgment on the plaintiff according to the administrative investigation on the
appellant’s income.

Select target paragraph3