After reviewing what has been entered in all pleas made by both parties, and looking at the proceedings of lawsuit No 101/2015, we decided to interve to revoke the decision of the first instance Court, for the following reasons: Firstly: regarding the Spousal Alimony the legal representative of the defendant requested the Suspension of Spousal Alimony until a lawsuit of Submission is completed; the plaintiff lawyer agreed. The court decided to do so and continue to proceed on the matter of Child Alimony alone. Therefore, the court judgment on a Subsequent Alimony and Past-Period Alimony is not called for, as no request for it was filed; without a request there is no [need] for a judgement. The Spousal Alimony in return for a Submission under husband’s guardianship, in an addition to the acceptance of the plaintiff to stop the Alimony, means a refusal of the Submission request. The Court decision to enter a Spousal Alimony is therefore in breach of Article 75 of the Law of Personal Status. And it also breaches the agreement between parties made in front of the court itself; it has proceeded and stopped the Alimony and proceed with the Child Alimony issue. See page 7 of the recorded lawsuit notes. Secondly :In regard to the Child Alimony, we found that the court did not obligate the defendant to estimate the amount of it, because this could help in imposing a temporary Child Alimony until the lawsuit decision is made. Also, the court did not make a decision on the plaintiff requests for Alimonies of clothing, housing and schooling expenses, nor did it reject them, despite these requests being recorded in the lawsuit. I also did not find statement or evidence about the income of the plaintiff and the his previous financial wellbeing. That is required because the Alimony decision is conditional, based on the financial status, according to section 90/2/3/ of Law of Personal Status1991. Also, the evidence presented in regard to Past-Period Alimony is referring to a continuation of an Alimony. Therefore, we did not find any justification from court about which judgements it made; or it didn’t make any decision in the first place. This means, it breached Sections 65/66 of the same law. Therefore, and directing the court to bind the defendant with an assessment appropriate for a temporary Alimony for Child support, make the following decision: Order: 1. Cancel all the decisions of first instance Court. 2. Refer the case back to the court for retrial with these instructions 3. Notify all parties. EL Ameen Mohmed Nor Judge of Rabak Public court