Therefore, the first respondent requests the Court to confirm the contested judgment and cancel the objection. Reasons: The Court of First Instance has issued its judgment to reject the case raised by plaintiff/appellant for revoking her marriage with the first defendant as she did not consent and was not consulted. The Trial Court has fully verifies the matter and reached upon its decision which was confirmed by the Court of Second Instance for the same reasons and conclusions, but the appellant continued to raise the same facts and to plead absence of consent and consultancy requesting revocation of her marriage, moreover, she pleads that the testimony of the other party’s witnesses is tainted with loyalty and bias, a matter that was not pleaded before the lower Court, which has the full power to decide and issue its conclusion in this regard. Hence, the sufficient evidence has been assessed by the lower courts, such as the testimony given by the first witness/ Ismail Ahmed Adam, in page 11 and the following pages of the minutes, that appellant came from Bram in Darfur to Khartoum after seven months of her legal marriage ceremony (contract) accompanied by her mother and sister, when her husband has received her in the airport , she was hosted by one of her relatives and thereafter she went to Al Salha to join her husband in their matrimonial home. However there was misunderstanding between them and there were attempts to fix the problems between them and when she was asked about the reasons behind the problems she answered he is, i.e., respondent is a little bit ill-tempered. The witness went on saying that, within a period of two months, the first defendant (respondent), has called him two times and told him he set divorce on her, which is one revocable time and re-married her). The second witness / Ismail Abdelmanan Ahmed Sadiq, has also testified (page 43 of the minutes and the following pages), that he had received appellant in the airport and the party was celebrated in his house at Abu Sieid area, added that he attended the party and extended his congratulation to appellant who accepted and the appellant and her husband had stayed together for three months following that party.