The court pointed out in its reasoning that the children’s enrollment in a private school is not a new or unexpected matter, but rather the educational path they had been accustomed to since childhood and continued without interruption. Therefore, changing it without justification is contrary to their educational interests and psychological well-being.

It affirmed that this is within the scope of the legally and religiously mandated expenses, stressing that school fees are an integral part of the legally and religiously mandated maintenance, and this obligation is not waived simply because there is free public education, provided the children’s best interests are proven and the father has the financial means to pay.

It rejected the father’s argument that free public education exempts him from any financial obligation towards private education, indicating that the assessment of educational expenses is based on the actual circumstances of the children and their educational level, not the availability of a free alternative. It then obligated the father to pay the full school fees as detailed in the ruling, thereby, upholding the principle of prioritizing the best interests of the children above all other considerations.