The Federal Supreme Court affirmed a legal principle, according to which the lawsuit of increasing or decreasing alimony is not heard before a year has passed since its imposition, prescribing the refusal to appeal a woman to a decision that did not meet her requests for alimony.
In the details, a woman filed a lawsuit against her husband, requesting a ruling to divorce her from him, obtaining custody of the two children, and compelling him for the expenses and their dependencies for her and the parents, the housing allowance and the furniture allowance.
Her husband filed a counter-claim in which he confirmed his request for divorce, seeking to drop the custody of the plaintiff of the two children and prove his right to determine their affairs, while two court-appointed rulings decided to differentiate between them.
The Court of First Instance ruled for the wife to divorce with custody of the two children, and to compel her husband to pay the expenses and accessories for her, the parents, the housing allowance and the furniture allowance, and refused to do so.
In the opposite case, the defendant rejected it, and was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the ruling, and she contested the veto, stating that “the ruling violated the law regarding determining the expenses and their consequences, without taking into account the defendant’s income and the money apparent to him.”
The Federal Supreme Court rejected the appeal, explaining that it is decided in its judiciary that the trial court has full authority to obtain an understanding of the reality in the case, and to estimate the expense, housing, and related functions, and an estimate of the extent of the spender's left and the need of the spending. It is prescribed in the Personal Status Law that it is permissible to increase and decrease alimony according to changing circumstances, and the case for increase or decrease is not heard before a year has passed since the alimony was imposed except in exceptional cases.
She added that the increase or decrease in alimony is counted from the date of the judicial claim, and there is no oversight of the trial court, as long as it has established its judiciary on reasonable grounds sufficient to bear it after briefing the conditions of the parties, either easily or hardly, and the economic and social situation, time and place.
The court concluded that the appeal judgment took note of the foregoing Shari'a rules that bestowed it on the reality presented before him from a legal understanding and knowledge of the reality, after he reviewed the defenses of the two parties, and then concluded a result consistent with the tolerant Islamic Sharia and the law regarding the expenses and their consequences, taking into account the defendant's income, And the absence of money for him other than earning.