official document and further to that the plaintiff did not motion a case of fraud or tempering with the document but rather confirmed everything on its face and therefore, whatever is written on the contract should be binding. And that any term or condition contrary to the what has already been written should not be considered based on article 28 of the civil procedure law and therefore, what the court of the first instance had decided on and supported by the appeal court stand valid and true in accordance with the law, for the official document is proof to all concerned parties as long as it was not accused of forgery. Article 41 of the Convalidation. Showing off is not considered a legal defense until a hearing to its proof or otherwise is called upon. And stating that the respondent is the one who called for her divorce does not deprive her of her right in claiming the remaining sum of the dowry unless she willingly drops her right, which was not the case in the hearings. And stating that she did not remain in the marriage household and therefore labeled as a rebellious wife and does not deserve any rights on the money in question, is not justifiable for being rebellious if proven does not deprive her to claim the remaining sum of the dowry but deprives her of her right of alimony. Therefore, we see that this appeal is hopeless and should be rejected in summary with its fee and the opinion of my colleagues in the Bench. (Signature) Yagoob Mohammed Abdul Rahman Judge of the Supreme Court 25/3/2015 (Signature) Mohammed Yassen Al Shaikh Idress Judge of the Supreme Court 30/3/2015 (Signature) Salah Al Tijani Al Ameen Judge of the Supreme Court 7/4/2015 Final Order: "The appeal is dismissed summerly” (Signature) Yagoob Mohammed Abdul Rahman Judge of the Supreme Court Head of the Bench 25/3/2015