T.C.
SUPREME COURT 3. Legal Department Main No: 2016/12465
Decision No :2017/2439
Decision Date : 02.03.2017
SUPREME COURT DECISION
COURT: FAMILY COURT
As a result of the trial of the precautionary alimony case between the parties by the court, the decision made for partial acceptance of the case was appealed by the defendant within the time limit; after the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, the papers in the file were read and Decisively considered:
SUPREME COURT DECISION
The plaintiff, in summary in the petition for the case; the defendant and the official Jul have been married for 15 years, the defendant beat him, there are criminal cases belonging to the defendant, the defendant is currently living with another woman, he does not provide for his needs and the house, for these reasons, 300,00 TL per month has requested and sued to be decided to rule on precautionary alimony.
The defendant, the trial in the statement; for about a year living with a woman named Zeynep separate from the plaintiff, the prosecutor is not a formal wedding, husband and wife with the plaintiff in 2004-2014 her life experiences, arguing that it was not in a position to pay her alimony; has asked for a dismissal. By the court; with partial acceptance of the case, taking into account that the parties lived a husband and wife life without official marriage for 10 years, and the defendant later lived with another woman; the case
as of the date of the decision, it was decided that the monthly 200,00 TL precautionary alimony should be taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff, the request for excess should be rejected; the decision was appealed by the defendant in due course.
The case is related to the request for precautionary alimony. TMK’s 195. in the article; “If the obligations arising from the marriage union are not fulfilled or there is a disagreement on an important issue related to the marriage union, the spouses may request the intervention of the judge separately or together…. The judge shall, if necessary, take the measures provided for in the Law upon the request of one of the spouses.” Of the same law, 197.in the article; “One of the spouses should not live separately as long as his personality, economic security or family peace is seriously endangered due to joint life.”
pagdating. If Decoupling from living together is based on a justified reason, the judge, upon the request of one of the spouses
the monetary contribution that one will make to the other, the use of housing and household goods, and the property of the spouses
it takes measures related to the management of …” regulations are included.
According to the scope of the file, it is understood that the parties lived together for a while with an informal wedding, and then broke up. The precautionary alimony provided for in Article 197 et seq. of the TMK is the institutions accepted from the point of view of the official married spouse, and it is understood that the plaintiff is the informal married spouse of the defendant; while the request for alimony from the point of view of the informal spouse must be completely rejected; according to the court, the plaintiff and the defendant lived a husband and wife life without official marriage for 10 years, and since the defendant later lived with another woman, the establishment of a provision for partial acceptance of the case is contrary to the procedure and the law, and required an annulment.
CONCLUSION: Without taking into account the principles described above, the provision facility in writing is incorrect, since the appeals are in place for these reasons, and the HUMK of the provision is accepted.nun 428.to be overturned in accordance with the article and to return the appeal fee received in advance to the appellant upon request, 6100
HUMK No. 1086 with reference to provisional article 3 of the HMK no.nun 440.according to the article, the decision was decided unanimously on 02.03.2017, with the correction path closed.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.