still related to him by marriage bond, that they have their child Ahmed ( two years old), that he stopped spending on them since 02/01/2013, without any legal reason although he is financially capable. Plaintiff claims maintenance an amount of SP 500 monthly for food for her and her child, and an amount of SP 300 for her clothing, to be paid every six month, an amount of SP 200 for her child clothing , to be paid every four month, an amount of SP 1000 for house rent to be paid monthly, and their medical treatment as per the respective invoices. The defendant responded to the case denying marriage and fatherhood, that there is no sharia bond between him and the plaintiff and the child is not his son and claimed that the case should be rejected. The plaintiff was asked to bring evidence, where she brought two witnesses who gave their testimonies to her favour. The Trial Court issued its judgment in the presence of the parties, on: 28/09/2014, confirming validity of marriage bond, validity of Ahmed’s parentage, defendant was ordered to pay an amount of SP 500 monthly for food for both plaintiff and her child, an amount of SP 300 for her clothing, to be paid every six month, an amount of SP 200 for her child clothing , to be paid each four month, an amount of SP 400 for house rent to be paid monthly, and their medical treatment to be paid as per the respective invoices, as of the date the case was raised. The judgment was contested and an appeal was submitted to the Court of Appeal, which has issued the above-mentioned decision, subject of objection. Appellant requests that, the decision issued by the Trial Court and that issued by the Court of Appeal shall both be cancelled, that the alimony shall be reconsidered in a fair way that is in accordance with section (66) of the Personal Status Act. The reason for appeal included that, the both the Trial Court and the Court of Appeal were mistaken in applying section (65) of the Personal Status Act as the Court did not require the plaintiff to prove his work or income as she alleged it to be. The Court did not also consider the circulars issued by the Chief Justice, which decide the maximum and minimum limit in deciding the alimony, that he is married and have four daughters and plaintiff is divorced from other two