The appeal was made for the following reasons: 1- The defendant – appellant- is a prisoner who had been notified by the prison’s authorities, was brought and the case was heard in his presence, where he requested time to reply. When the prison’s authorities did not bring him, the Trial Court heard the assessment evidence and issued the above judgment in his absence. 2- Absence of the defendant was due to the prison’s authorities, which did not bring him to reply to the case. 3- No investigation was made on the defendant’s income and his dependants. 4- The amount decided is excessive and defendant is a prisoner and has no income. 5- The defendant requests cancellation of the judgment issued and to allow him to respond to the case, attend the evidence of assessment or reduce the judgment amount to be in accordance with his conditions. Reply was as follows: 1. The judgment is in the presence and not in default as the defendant had attended the session when the case had been explained. 2. The judgment gives alimony that is at the poverty level after hearing the assessment evidence and as per precedents (previous judgments), administrative investigation regarding the defendant’s income can be omitted and expert evidence shall be satisfactory. 3. The alimony decided is at the poverty level, even if the defendant is jobless. 4. At the end, it was claimed that, the appeal shall be cancelled, the judgment issued by the Trial Court be upheld and the appeal shall be decided on. It is clear in the minutes that the defendant is a prisoner and was brought to the court to explain the case, he requested time to reply and he was not brought from the prison to attend the session named for replying, where the hearing session for assessment evidence was decided without hearing his reply, on which point the contested judgment was based. I did not find any administrative investigation in the minutes and upon asking the first assessment’s witness about the defendant’s job and income, he stated that he does not know that the defendant has any job or income source. The second witness was not asked about the defendant’s job and income. Based on the above and the minutes of the case, I believe that, the judgment - subject of appeal - shall be cancelled, the papers shall be referred back to the Trial Court to hear the defendant’s reply, conduct investigation about his income and dependants and then hear the assessment evidence, for the following reasons: The issued judgment was deemed to have been issued in presence, while it is not actually in the presence of the defendant, where the defendant was not able to attend, reply to the case and discuss the assessment evidence due to a reason that is beyond his control, as he is a prisoner and the prison’s authorities did not bring him and he remained helpless, such as a person being thrown in a river and asked to keep himself dry. It is true that the administrative investigation is necessary in assessing the alimony, but it can be dispensed with and several precedents that include the decision issued in cassation/143/1991, journal 1991. Page 10, but what is the necessity that caused the Trial Court to dispense with the administrative investigation and the testimony of the first witness indicated that he does not know the defendant’s job and income, that expenses shall be assessed in accordance with section 96 of the Personal Status Act, as per the wellness of the related person and the economy status, time and geographically wise.