Law Firm
Case Number: 2016/20858
Case Number: 2018/8072
“Judgment Text”
COURT: First Instance Civil (Family) Court
CASE TYPE: Mutual Divorce
The decision rendered by the local court in the case between the parties specified above, taking into account the findings and objections regarding the plaintiff-defendant man’s rejection of the wife’s claims for fault determination, compensation, alimony, and custody, and the defendant-plaintiff woman’s rejection of claims for compensation, poverty alimony, and contribution alimony, the documents have been reviewed and the necessary matters discussed and evaluated:
1- Based on the documents in the file, the evidence upon which the decision is based, the legal grounds, and particularly the fact that no errors were found in the evaluation of the evidence, the objections of the parties outside the scope of the following paragraphs are groundless.
2-
Although the court decided to grant both divorce petitions by finding the parties equally at fault for the events leading to the divorce; as evident from the hearing and the gathered evidence, the plaintiff-defendant husband failed to provide his wife with independent housing, threatened her, subjected her to physical violence, insulted her, prevented her from seeing her family, remained silent regarding her family’s interference in the marriage, threatened her, and insulted her; the defendant-plaintiff woman, on the other hand, insulted her husband, neglected her marital duties, remained silent regarding her family’s interference in the marriage, threatened her husband, and insulted him.
Under these circumstances, it must be accepted that the plaintiff-defendant man is more seriously at fault than the defendant-plaintiff woman in the events leading to the divorce. In this case, it is incorrect to consider the parties equally at fault, and this requires the reversal of the decision.
3- In cases where divorce is caused by the reasons outlined in the second paragraph above, the plaintiff-defendant man is seriously at fault, and these fault-based behaviors also constitute an infringement of the woman’s personal rights. As a result of the divorce, the woman was deprived of her husband’s financial support. From the perspective of women’s interests, the conditions of Article 174/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code have been met. Considering the parties’ social and economic circumstances, the severity of the faults, and the principle of justice, while seeking both material and moral compensation for the woman’s benefit, the written rejection of the decision was incorrect.
4-
It is understood that the plaintiff-defendant man was drafted into military service during the proceedings. A man performing mandatory military service and having no income or assets cannot be held liable for alimony. While the plaintiff-defendant man should not have been held liable for temporary alimony during his military service, it was incorrect to issue a temporary alimony ruling covering this period for the defendant-plaintiff woman and their minor children.
5- Considering the parties’ social and economic conditions, the nature of the alimony, and current economic conditions, the poverty alimony awarded to the defendant-plaintiff woman is excessive. Taking into account the principle of equity under Article 4 of the Turkish Civil Code, the court should determine a more appropriate amount of alimony. Issuing a written judgment without considering this matter is contrary to procedure and law.
6- Considering the parties’ social and economic conditions, the nature of the alimony, and current economic conditions, the child support awarded in the best interest of the minor child is excessive. In accordance with the principle of equity under Article 4 of the Turkish Civil Code, the court should determine a more appropriate amount of child support. Issuing a written decision without considering this matter is contrary to procedure and law.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons stated in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 above, the appealed decision is for an EXCESSIVE AMOUNT; the other parts of the appeal not covered by this ruling are AFFIRMED for the reason stated in paragraph 1 above.
It has been unanimously decided that the appeal fee shall be refunded to the payer upon request within 15 days of the service of this decision, and that the possibility of correction shall be left open. June 26, 2018 (Tuesday)