husbands and has three children residing with her in the same house, why should he pay the full amount. After perusing the decision issued by the Trial Court, the decision issued by the Court of appeal and the objection petition, we find that, the alimony decided by the Court Trial was reasonable and does not exceed poverty line, as the amount decided for food and living is less than SP 17 per day, for plaintiff and her son, which is very small compared with the current living conditions. The amount for clothing and house rent was also suitable. The Trial Court has issued its judgment pursuant to section (65) of the Personal Status Act, which illustrates what alimony includes, however, the assessment was made in accordance with section (66) of the same Act. Therefore, the contested judgment is sound and accordingly, if my respectful colleagues agree, I believe that the objection shall be cancelled on the basis of summary procedures and the appellant shall be ordered to pay the respective fees. Confirm the judgment issued by the Trial Court. Al Bushra Osman Salih “signed” Judge at the Supreme Court 06/06/2015 I agree: Abdul Aziz Al Rasheed, “signed”” Judge at the Supreme Court 05/07/2015 I agree: Dr. Sitanna Abdul Galil “signed” Judge at the Supreme Court 09/07/2015