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.