Preface

143
see that the submission of the appellant there took about three (printed) pages
while that of the respondent took just about two and a half page. This confirms to
us that the appellant was given fair hearing in the lower court.
This ground of appeal also fails for lack of merit.
(5) On Ground number 5; it is easier to merge this ground with six.
Ground 5 says the lower court, Brikama Cadi court has failed to take into
consideration that the appellant was taking full care of the said children while
Ground 6 is saying: I have been with the children for eight and a half consecutive
months but the respondent paid maintenance only for one month. This Ground of
appeal succeeds because we have not seen any place in the lower court proceedings
where the court has given order as to the issue of maintenance cost arrears for the
children.
(6) Ground number 7 which is now 6 because of the merger of five and six
on the issue of giving the appellant the opportunity to see her children at
convenience is bound to fail. This is because if you cast a cursory look at the
orders given by the lower court, you will see that item No. 3 gives the appellant
wonderful opportunity to see her children at and when she wishes. This ground has
therefore failed for lack of merit.
Finally, on the last ground of appeal that is, the orders made by the Brikama
Cadi court are wrong in law and against the rules of custody as mentioned in the
Holy Book, the Quran. It is a trite law under the rules of custody in Islamic law
that after the death of a husband or separation of spouses by divorce, the custody
goes to their mother. This is irrespective of the religion of the mother. The same
rule applies to a Muslim and non-Muslim mother i.e. Christians and Jews. The
question to be asked now is whether the appellant is a Christian or not? The fact
that she was originally a Christian but subsequently converted to Islam and later