Resisting the rule of proving the marriage of foreigners

On the day corresponding to the hour

Construction at the invitation of Ms.. Al-Salam neighborhood, Kafr Saqr, Sharqiya, and its chosen premises. Teachers’ office: Mohamed Mostafa, Mohamed El Haddad, lawyers in Kafr Saqr.

I am the record of the District Court has moved in the past time referred to above on any where – the street insured – nationalism – Zagazig and announced:

Resisting the rule of proving the marriage of foreigners
The most famous lawyer in Egypt – Hayam Gomaa Salem 01061680444
The most famous lawyer in Egypt – Hayam Gomaa Salem 01061680444
The most famous lawyer in Egypt – Hayam Gomaa Salem 01061680444
The most famous lawyer in Egypt – Hayam Gomaa Salem 01061680444
The most famous lawyer in Egypt – Hayam Gomaa Salem 01061680444

the master/ ……………………………. Addressing with

Subject

The appellant held a number of 226 for the year 2009, the family of Kafr Saqr requested at the conclusion of her marriage to the advertiser under the written written agreement of 26/3/2009 and this by virtue of accelerated access and without bail with the obligation of the expenses and against the efforts of lawyers.

The court decided to reject the lawsuit, and since that ruling was not accepted by the applicant renewed, it is the initiative to challenge him by way of Appeal for reasons of faulty implementation of legislation and corruption in the inference and unconstitutionality Article 5 Article 2 of legislation 103 of 1976 regarding the report on the marriage of foreigners in the Arab Republic of Egypt, it states the following in its statement,

First: the mistake in implementing the legislation

As evidenced by the newspaper and its documents that the appellant and the advertiser have a legitimate marriage association under a written agreement legal marriage has met the various determinants and rules necessary for the marriage is true of the positive and acceptance between the parties; and the presence of witnesses of justice, it is legitimate and law and according to the doctrine of the tap in force valid marriage valid It is necessary whether the marriage voucher is written in a government paper or not originally written in a paper.

Since marriage and according to what is planned in the established jurisprudence of Hanafi proves that one of three (certificate, ratification, denial of the right)

Since the parties to the dispute were present both in person and with a lawyer, and the plaintiff admitted that the marriage had been obtained and in addition to the validity of the marriage, and that the judgment was contrary to the validity of the ratification, it is flawed in the implementation of the legislation for violating the provisions of article 103, 104 of the ” In the face of the judiciary with a legal reality claimed by him and this during the proceedings in connection with that incident “- Article 103 of the legislation of evidence.

“Ratification argument is interrupted on the order, and the ratification of the author is not only if the focus on a variety of facts and the existence of reality does not necessarily require the existence of other events,” – Article 104 of the legislation of evidence.

Since the judgment was contrary to that view and did not respect the validity of ratification as a means of proving the marriage, it had been wrong to implement the legislation.

Second: Corruption in the inference

In notification of that obeisance, the judgment in which the case was dismissed would have been corrupt in its reasoning when it decided that my parties

The amendments did not fulfill the provisions of Article 5, Section 2, of Law 103 of 1976 regarding a report

Marriage of foreigners has been omitted to ratify the parties to the decline in the validity of their marriage to the article article 2 of Article 5 of the

Legislation 103 of 1976, as well as the requirement to provide two official certificates from his country for non-objection in his marriage and a statement of

Social status and profession, and stipulate that the age difference between the spouses should not exceed 25 years. This is because the decision of the aforementioned article regarding the restrictions that it placed on the right to choose the spouse is subject to the right of the person who wishes to marry to choose who is reassuring and willingly accepts it, Two partners in an extended life that will be a residence for them, which is infallible to the constitutionality, as it was on its own to refer the article to the Supreme Constitutional Court – when it seemed unconstitutional of that article – or to refrain from implementing that article with restrictions on the right to one Choose who wants to marry him – and be satisfied with In addition to the fact that the four jurisprudential doctrines did not stipulate only the affirmative and the acceptance and the general as conditions for obtaining the marriage. Whereas the second article of the Egyptian Basic Law in force at the present time has decided that the Sharia Islam is the publisher of the basic news of the legislation and the fact that the Hanafi school is considered in matters of personal status – has been the chair of the Supreme Constitutional Court in clarifying the concept of marriage as follows:

“Marriage is a legal contract that is made by the people who are entitled to contract. Once the two parties exchange the expression of identical wishes in the written agreement council, provided that it is made public by two witnesses who have freedom, maturity and mind, they understand the meaning of the phrase and its meaning,

(Reviewed in this regard the judiciary of the Supreme Constitutional Court in the case No. 23 of 16 Supreme Constitutional Council)

Since the parties to the abrogation have met the determinants and rules that are legally required for the health of their marriage. Therefore, the obedience to the judgment of that sight and the failure of the plaintiff to dispose of her marriage from the plaintiff is based on article 5 of article 103 of 1976, In this case, the appellant was placed in a severe religious embarrassment because of the failure to destroy her marriage from the respondent. What is the ruling on the time she spent in his custody from the date of the written agreement until the date of the ruling on refusing the proof of marriage? His hands from him chewed, it was her to ask Ahi From a thief or a nikah !!