Legal Department
Case Number: 2018/6836
Decision Number: 2019/7645
“Text of Justice”
COURT: Family Court
CASE TYPE: Divorce
PARTY REQUESTING CORRECTION OF DECISION: Defendant
The date, subject matter, and parties of the above-mentioned ruling; A request for correction of our Chamber’s decision dated 04/18/2018 and numbered 2016/15634-2018/5203, regarding partial annulment-partial approval, has been made, the document has been read, and the necessity has been evaluated;
Although the Civil Procedure Law No. 6100 entered into force on October 1, 2011, subparagraph (1) of the transitional Article 3 added to this Law by Law No. 6217 states that Decisions taken before the Regional Courts of Justice commenced their duties and until the finalization of Law No. 1086 on 26.09.2014. Since it was decided that the provisions of Articles 427 to 454, prior to the amendment made by Law No. 5236, would continue to apply, the request for reconsideration of the decision had to be examined.
1- As a result of the divorce case filed by the plaintiff woman in court; it was decided that the case was accepted, the parties were divorced, alimony was awarded to the plaintiff woman, and the parties’ claims for compensation were rejected. It was decided to overturn the decision on the grounds that the plaintiff woman had lost her right to file a lawsuit and present evidence, that the accusation against the plaintiff woman was incorrect, that the defendant man was entirely at fault in this case, and that material and moral compensation should be awarded in favor of the plaintiff woman.
Upon re-examination of the file: The defendant man was notified of the petition on January 6, 2015, the defendant’s lawyer submitted his power of attorney to the file along with his petition dated January 16, 2015, and requested an extension of the response period, and the court granted the defendant an additional two weeks to submit his response petition. It is understood that the defendant submitted his response petition on time in 2015.
Accordingly, the defendant man also has the right to present the facts and evidence, and based on the facts accepted by the court, it is accepted that both parties are equally at fault, and there is no irregularity in rejecting the plaintiff woman’s compensation claims. However, since this issue was overlooked in the initial review and the decision was overturned, the defendant’s request for correction was accepted, and our decision dated 04/18/2018, numbered 2018, was revoked. Articles 2 and 3 regarding the necessity of the judgment should have been removed; the court decision should be upheld in terms of determining fault and rejecting the plaintiff’s claims for compensation based on the stated grounds.
2- The plaintiff woman stated in her petition that she worked at a bank, but in her response, she stated that she had left her job. The notification sent by the bank where the plaintiff woman worked stated that she had left her job on November 19, 2014, and witnesses also stated that the plaintiff woman had resigned, thinking that her employment contract would be terminated. An alimony decision cannot be made in favor of a woman who voluntarily left her job.
In this case, the alimony assessment in favor of the plaintiff woman is incorrect. However, since this issue was overlooked during the initial review, the defendant’s request to correct the alimony decision was accepted, and the partial alimony approval decision issued with the decision dated April 18, 2018, with the case number 2016/15634 and the decision number 2018/5203, was revoked. It was necessary to decide on its revocation in terms of alimony.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the defendant’s request for correction is in accordance with Articles 440-442 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Our decisions dated 18.04.2018, numbered 2016/15634 and 2018/5203, have been revoked in accordance with the sworn statement regarding the alimony awarded in favor of the plaintiff woman, and the ruling on alimony has also been overturned for the reasons explained above. The partial approval of the determination of fault of the plaintiff woman in our court’s decisions dated 18.04.2018, numbered 2016/15634 and 2018/5203 -partial reversal of the determination of fault, and reversal of the plaintiff woman’s rejected compensation claims, and to APPROVE the ruling on the determination of fault and the plaintiff woman’s rejected compensation claims, and to refund the decision correction fee to the party who paid it upon request. June 24, 2019 (Monday)