T.C.
SUPREME
3. Law Department Article No: 2008/6915
Decision No :2008/7602
Date of Decision : 01.05.2008
ALIMONY CASE – WHETHER THE SALARY RECEIVED BY THE DEFENDANT LIVES HUMANELY
– THE DEFENDANT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET ALONG
HOW TO GET OUT OF POVERTY – THE DEFENDANT’S WORK
– REJECTION OF THE CASE MAY NOT BE A CONTINUITY OF THE PHENOMENON
REQUIREMENT
SUMMARY: The defendant, who started working in a private company with a minimum wage, received a salary, lived humanely and
there is no doubt that he will not be able to earn a living, will not save him from poverty. Besides, the defendant
when it is also taken into account that the phenomenon of work may not require continuity, the court; the decision to dismiss the case
it must be given.
(4721 Pp. K. m. 175) (YHGK. 07.10.1998 T. 1998/2-656 E. 1998/688 K.)
Case: The local court will Deconstruct the child support case between the parties at the end of the procedure
the verdict has been appealed by the defendant.
Verdict: After it is understood that the appeal request is within the time limit, all the papers in the file are read and
has been considered.
Decision: The plaintiff (husband) is insured as of 11.11.2006 after the defendant’s divorce
claiming that he started working, and therefore got out of poverty, he received 250.00 USD per month of poverty
he demanded that his alimony be abolished and sued.
In the respondent’s (woman’s) response petition, it is stated that she is divorced from the plaintiff on the condition that she receives alimony for poverty, which she entered
he also declared that he had been dismissed from his job, that the jobs he had found did not require continuity, that he was currently unemployed, and that the case
he defended his refusal.
According to the court, during the divorce proceedings the defendant did not work, then entered into employment as an insured,
the case history of alimony for poverty, mentioning that he still works at the minimum wage and receives a regular income
as of now, it has been decided to be abolished, and the verdict has been appealed by the defendant.
From the contents of the file, the parties are divorced by agreement, regarding the financial consequences of the divorce
the court also found that the agreement is in accordance with the monthly for the defendant from the date of the case on 20.2.2006
It is understood that a decision has been made on 250,00 YTL poverty support.
Its provision has been implemented in accordance with the MK.
Although the legal concept of poverty is not defined in this article, YHGK’s 7.10.1998
date and place of residence – eating, dressing, housing, health, transport, culture, as adopted in resolution No. 2-656-688
it will cover expenses that are considered mandatory and necessary for improving the material existence of an individual, such as
it is necessary to consider those who do not have a decent income as poor.
The defendant enters and leaves an insured business after the divorce, and at the minimum wage on the date of the case, Y. name
it is understood that he works at the company.
It should be noted that in the established decisions of the SSI, work is carried out with a minimum wage
a phenomenon that makes it impossible to connect has not been accepted.
In the concrete case; the salary received by the defendant, who started working in a private company with a minimum wage, is humanely
there is no doubt that he will not be able to live and earn a living, and this will not save him from poverty. Moreover,,
considering that the fact of defendant’s work may not require continuity, the court;
acceptance is correct with a written justification as a result of a erroneous assessment, while a decision on refusal should be made
it has not been seen.
Conclusion: As of this moment, the provision is made in writing without taking into account the principles described above
however, since the appeals are in place for these reasons, the decision is made with the acceptance of HUMKun 428.
in accordance with the article, the appeal fee received in advance and the appeal fee received in advance will be paid to the appellant upon request
his extradition was decided unanimously on 01.05.2008. (¤¤)
Synergy Legislation and Case Law Program Page 2 of 2
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.