The Federal Supreme Court accepted an absolute appeal against a judgment that it had rescinded custody of its four children and dropped all their expenses. The court explained that the defendant did not attend court sessions of the first degree while her judgment was handed down.
In the details, a man filed a personal case against his employer, demanding that she be forced to leave the house, return the furniture, drop her custody of his four children and stop the maintenance.
The plaintiff said that "the defendant was his wife, and gave her three daughters and a boy, and then divorced, and children exceeded the age of custody of women, and that she married a foreign man from them," adding that the judiciary has already been imposed on them with provisions issued, and that the defendant took the furniture of the house, He bought it.
The Court of First Instance presided over the dropping of the defendant's custody of the said children, their inclusion in their plaintiff's father and the dropping of all the expenses imposed on the plaintiff in the previous cases. The Court of Appeal ruled that this ruling could not be appealed.
The defendant said that "the ruling was contrary to the law and fixed the papers with the invalidity of the initial sentence, as it included a legal error in the presence of the presence, although it did not attend any hearing before the court of the first degree.
The Federal Supreme Court upheld this appeal, asserting that «the Code of Civil Procedure sets out for each of the provisions that it considers to be present, and those which it describes as an act of civilization, a text that reveals their differences from each other and does not interfere with them, that in article 52/1 That the dispute is considered to be present in the defendant's right, if he attends a hearing or submits a memorandum of defense, even if he subsequently fails. Article 53/1 states that the judgment is considered as a civil proceeding in cases where the defendant fails to appear despite his declaration to his person; If he has not been announced to his person, after adjournment of the case to a subsequent hearing and declaring it again, and against These differing opening date to challenge the judgment Hidouri from the day following the date of issuance, while making the start of the promised from the day following the date of the declaration of the convict if the sentence as a Hidouri ».
The court explained in the recitations that "the firm claim that the plaintiff did not attend any session, nor did it deposit any defense in front of the Court of First Instance, the initial judgment is considered for her as a civilized, the date of appeal begins the day after the announcement of it, That the papers have not received the defendant's declaration of the initial judgment, and the dates of the appeal remain open unless it is proved that it was not. If the appeal rule otherwise took place, the right of the plaintiff to challenge the appeal shall fall, Judgment, he would be wrong to apply the law to his violation of the Promising basic jus, concerning the organization of litigation and the rules of justice, which requires veto with referral ».
• The Court of First Instance decided to drop the custody of the defendant to the children and to include them in their father's custody.