appeal court concluded that the one of the two arbitrators is a young minor and that both arbitrators failed to check who bears the full fault and also failed to establish the degree of abuse of the couple against each other and which partner is more abusive than the other, the claim went on to state that the respondent did not deliberately miss the compromise sessions and that the representative of the applicant is contradicting himself on the list of facts he resented, for what is true is that the Father of the applicant refuses his son in law’s attendance at his house – and therefore the respondent requests to second the judgment of the appeal court and to reject the claim. The Reasons: The claim requesting a divorce was presented by the applicant named: Fatimah Abdul Ghafour Ibrahim / Against / the respondent Ali Ameen Ahmed Hassen, and thus the judgment of the second degree judge mentioned above is issued and was approved by the judge of the general court for his reasons and opinions which are; that the court of the first instance had followed the instructions of the appeal court and then issued its judgment which is under cassation. It should be worth clarifying that the honorable appeal court has previously rejected the judgment and instructed the court of the first instance as is stated on its memorandum that there is no argument that the court of the first instance based its judgment on the report of the two arbitrators and conciliators which was prepared after the previous judgment had been issued and after the documents had been returned according to the instructions of the appeal court. And the mentioned report was conclusive of the cause and where it concluded that the dispute between the married couple is still going on not to mention the status of the married couple and the process of the case and failing to reach a conclusion as instructed by arbitrators and conciliators and their recommendation on the causes and continuation of the dispute, and they are mutual causes shared by the married couple, for the holy verse states (And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment Allah will make them of one mind. Lo! Allah is ever knower, Aware.) Verse 35 from the Women (Alnissah), in summary, if a dispute between the couple arises and their deeds were similar where the husband refuses to forgive and the woman refuses to do right by her husband, and they concluded to by wrongful verbal and acts, meaning the continuation of the dispute , and it has been stated from Iman Ali – May God be Pleased with him – send a man from his folk and another from her folk and said to the two arbitrators, do you know what befalls you, if you see that it is better to be reunited, then do so, and if you see that it is better to be separated, then do so – as was mentioned on the interpretations of the meaning, if you see amendment, Allah will make them of one mind. Until they emerge from the wrong doings. And the status of the couple deems that they emerge from such status when on the one turn to separate and on the other to reunite and thus the articles of the third chapter under articles 162-169 of the personal status act for Muslims for the year 1991 regarding divorce for harm and martial dispute are taken from such a doctrine, and by returning to what the two arbitrators have conceded based on the second and first report, that the reports suggest the continuation of the dispute which was apparent to them is caused by the both couples and thus the resolution by divorce without reconciliation or amendment. Therefore, the intervention of the honorable appeal court was not called for and erred the rightfulness of what is established which was reached by the court of the first instance which has exerted considerable efforts and applied the law by considering both married couples and the degree to which the dispute, harm and damage that has been reached