- As for the investigations presented about the alimony payer’s
income, it is merely complementary and not binding. This means,
the norm is that the experts’ opinion, who do not have to be
necessarily close to the alimony payer, or have met him before, for
as the aim of their testimonies is that they provided an estimation
of the needs of the dependents.
- Regarding the house, if the father has already parted with the
mother, why would he force her to lodge in his house, described as
ready-to-occupy, in order to care for his children? In my opinion,
the issue of the house is only entered to counter the claim of
renting a house, and that is neither logical nor objective. Had he
mentioned that he had another house in the same neighborhood for
the need of his children, we would have cancelled the decision in
this regard.
- In conclusion, the ruling was correct and the estimated sums are
appropriate, and that they were fully deserved, and if demanded
years earlier in accordance of what sharia prescribed for them, they
will be mostly affordable in current economic realities and needs
of living expenses, for the dependents of this age. And that is in
conformity with the aims of the legislator stipulated in Articles
(65) and onwards; (81) and (82) of the law of Personal Status of
1991.
- Thus, implementing the stipulation of Article (187/1/A) of the
Civil Procedures Code of 1983, amended 2009, we decree the
following ruling;
o Dismissing the request of appeal.
o Upholding the whole of the ruling by the Court of First
Instance.
o Notifying the parties.
Dr. Abdulfattah Mohammed
Judge of Public Court – Rabak.
6