Is a Husband’s Relationship with Another Woman an Assault on Personal Rights, and Can This Be the Subject of a Moral Damages Lawsuit

The dispute brought before the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation by way of appeal focuses on whether the amount of 75,000 YTL (TL) in moral damages awarded to the plaintiff woman is excessive, considering the financial circumstances and degrees of fault of the parties.

According to Article 174/2 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, the party whose personal rights have been violated due to events leading to divorce may claim an appropriate amount of money as moral damages from the other party at fault.

Moral damages are a type of satisfaction (or compensation) accepted to restore the disturbed moral balance, and moral damages are awarded if the events leading to the divorce constitute an attack on personal rights (Kılıçoğlu, Mustafa: Law of Damages, Hukuk Yayıncılık, Istanbul 2010, pp. 1036, 1369; Reisoğlu, Safa: General Provisions of the Law of Obligations, Beta Baskı, Istanbul 1998, p.179 et seq.; Oğuzman/Dural: Family Law, Filiz Kitabevi, Istanbul 1994, pp.144-145; Tekinay, s.Hâkim: Turkish Family Law, Filiz Publishing, Istanbul 1990, pp. 261-262; Oğuzman, Kemal: General Provisions of Contract Law, Filiz Publishing, Istanbul 1995, p. 641; See also YIBK.22.06.1966-7/7)

The marital union established between the parties through divorce ends by court decision. The rights arising from the termination of the marriage due to divorce (material and moral compensation, alimony) may be claimed together with the divorce case, or they may be claimed by filing a separate lawsuit within one year from the date the divorce decision becomes final.

According to Article 174/2 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, the party whose personal rights have been violated due to the events leading to the divorce may request that the other party at fault pay an appropriate amount of money as moral damages.

Moral damages are a form of satisfaction (or compensation) accepted to restore the disturbed moral balance, and are paid when the events leading to the divorce constitute an attack on personal rights.

A husband’s adultery with another woman during the marriage is covered by Article 174/2 of the Turkish Civil Code. In the sense of the article, the existence of an attack on a person’s rights is accepted. Therefore, as a result of the husband cheating on his wife with another woman, the aggrieved spouse has the right to claim moral damages from her husband in a lawsuit filed with the divorce case or after the divorce case.

An example of a Supreme Court decision on this matter is as follows:

SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE GENERAL ASSEMBLY E. 2010/0K. 2010/220K. T. 14.4.2010

“(…1-The decision, based on the evidence and documents in the file, is based on compelling legal reasons, particularly in divorce or divorce cases, in short, in the event of the rejection of an individual divorce case, if compensation is requested, if the accepted amount is rejected, if a claim is made in favor of the other party based on the amount, the absence of attorney’s fees that could be beneficial is determined, according to all the plaintiffs, it has been ruled that the defendants’ appeals outside the scope of the following paragraph are unjustified.

2-Considering the parties’ established economic and social circumstances, the purchasing power of money, the degree of fault, and especially the nature of the events constituting an attack on personal rights, the amount of moral damages awarded to the plaintiff woman is excessive.

4 Based on the principle of fairness in Article 44 of the Turkish Civil Code and the requirement that moral damages be assessed at a more appropriate amount in Article 49 (TMK174/2), the decision to retry the case was overturned at the end of the trial, and the case was remanded; however, the court upheld its previous decision regarding moral damages.

APPELLANT: Defendant’s representative

DECISION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

Upon review by the General Assembly of the Court of Appeal, it was understood that an objection was made to the decision to uphold the previous ruling, and after reading the documents in the file, the following was discussed:

The case concerns divorce, claims for material and moral damages, and alimony.

The plaintiff’s (woman’s) attorney stated that the defendant, her husband, had completely withdrawn from public life 2.5-3 years ago, ended their marriage, and established a life with this woman in an informal relationship, and that he has a child with her. Th attorney requested that the court rule in favor of her clients in the divorce case and award them annual compensation of 50,000 TL in material damages, 150,000 GBP in moral damages, and alimony.

Th defendant’s (husband’s) lawyer argued that his client did not accept the claims other than divorce, that he was with a woman, and that when we first learned that this woman had a child with the plaintiff, if this situation was within the tolerance determined by the plaintiff, he defended his decision to reject the claims for alimony, material and moral damages.

There is no dispute between the parties that the deceased husband lived with another woman as husband and wife and had a child with her.

The plaintiff’s claim for material damages (related to the property regime) has been examined in this case.

The court’s decision to accept the divorce case filed by the plaintiff, partially accept the moral damages case, and reject the alimony case was overturned upon the objection filed by the defendant’s attorneys to the Special Chamber regarding moral damages based on the reasons stated above, and the court upheld its previous decision regarding moral damages.

Th issues of divorce, custody, personal relations, poverty, and participation between the parties have been finalized, and the alimony ruling is not a matter of dispute.

The dispute brought before the General Assembly of the Supreme Court by way of appeal centers on whether the amount of 75,000 YTL (TL) in moral damages awarded to the plaintiff woman is excessive, considering the financial circumstances of the parties and the degree of fault.

According to Article 174/2 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, the party whose personal rights have been violated due to the events leading to the divorce may request that the other party at fault pay an appropriate amount of money as moral damages.

Moral damages are a form of satisfaction (or compensation) accepted to restore the disturbed moral balance, and moral damages are awarded when the events leading to the divorce constitute an attack on personal rights (Kılıçoğlu, Mustafa: Tazminat Hukuku [Law of Damages], Hukuk Yayıncılık, Istanbul 2010, pp. 1036, 1369; Reisoğlu, Safa: General Provisions of the Law of Obligations, Beta Baskı, Istanbul 1998, p.179 et seq.; Oğuzman/Dural: Family Law, Filiz Kitabevi, Istanbul 1994, pp.144-145; Tekinay, s.Hâkim: Turkish Family Law, Filiz Publishing House, Istanbul 1990, pp. 261-262; Oğuzman, Kemal: General Provisions of Contract Law, Filiz Publishing House, Istanbul 1995, p. 641; See also YIBK.22.06.1966-7/7)

The dispute brought before the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation by way of appeal focuses on whether the amount of 75,000 YTL (TL) in moral damages awarded to the plaintiff woman is excessive, considering the financial circumstances and degrees of fault of the parties.

According to Article 174/2 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, the party whose personal rights have been violated due to events leading to divorce may claim an appropriate amount of money as moral damages from the other party at fault.

Moral damages are a type of satisfaction (or compensation) accepted to restore the disturbed moral balance, and moral damages are awarded if the events leading to the divorce constitute an attack on personal rights (Kılıçoğlu, Mustafa: Law of Damages, Hukuk Yayıncılık, Istanbul 2010, pp. 1036, 1369; Reisoğlu, Safa: General Provisions of the Law of Obligations, Beta Baskı, Istanbul 1998, p.179 et seq.; Oğuzman/Dural: Family Law, Filiz Kitabevi, Istanbul 1994, pp.144-145; Tekinay, s.Hâkim: Turkish Family Law, Filiz Publishing, Istanbul 1990, pp. 261-262; Oğuzman, Kemal: General Provisions of Contract Law, Filiz Publishing, Istanbul 1995, p. 641; See also YIBK.22.06.1966-7/7)

Bir yanıt yazın

E-posta adresiniz yayınlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir