Legal Department
Director Number: 2016/20858
Decision Number: 2018/8072
“Text of Justice”
COURT: Civil (Family) Court CASE
TYPE: Mutual Divorce
Following the trial of the case between the parties, the date and number of which are indicated above, the judgment rendered by the local court was appealed by the plaintiff-counter-defendant man, the case accepted by the woman, the determination of fault, the rejection of compensation claims, the amount of poverty and participation alimony claims, the defendant-counter -plaintiff woman, regarding the determination of fault, the rejection of compensation claims, and the amount of alimony and participation alimony claims, has been appealed, the documents have been read, and the necessary deliberations have been made and a decision has been reached:
1-
Considering the documents in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the legal reasons, and especially that there is no error in the assessment of the evidence, the parties’ appeals outside the scope of the following paragraphs are not found to be valid.
2- Although the court accepted that both parties were equally at fault in the events leading to the divorce and decided to accept both divorce cases, the proceedings and the evidence gathered showed that the plaintiff-counter-defendant man did not provide his wife with independent housing, threatened his wife, physically abused her, insulted her, prevented her from seeing her family, remained silent about his family’s interference in the marriage, and threatened and insulted his wife; while the defendant-counterclaimant woman insulted her husband, neglected her marital duties, remained silent about her family’s interference in the marriage, and threatened and insulted her husband. Accordingly, it must be accepted that the plaintiff-counter-defendant man is more at fault than the defendant-counter-defendant woman in the events leading to the divorce. In this case, it is not correct to consider the parties equally at fault, and this requires reversal.
3- For the reason stated in the second paragraph above, the plaintiff-defendant man is seriously at fault in the events leading to the divorce, and this fault also constitutes an attack on the woman’s personal rights. As a result of the divorce, the woman has been deprived of her husband’s financial support. The conditions of Article 174/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code have been met in favor of women. Considering the social and economic circumstances of the parties, the severity of their fault, and the principle of fairness, the written rejection decision is incorrect and must be overturned, and material and moral compensation should be awarded in favor of the woman.
4-
It is understood that the plaintiff-counter-defendant man was drafted into military service during the trial. A man who is performing military service and has no income or assets cannot be held liable for alimony for poverty. While the plaintiff-defendant man should not be held liable for provisional alimony during his military service, it was incorrect to decide that provisional alimony should be paid for the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman and their joint children, including for this period.
5-Considering the social and economic circumstances of the parties, the nature of the alimony, and the economic conditions of the day, the poverty alimony awarded to the defendant-counterclaimant woman is high. Taking into account the principle of fairness in Article 4 of the Turkish Civil Code, the court should have awarded a more appropriate amount of alimony. The written ruling, which did not take this into account, is contrary to procedure and law.
6- Considering the social and economic circumstances of the parties, the nature of the alimony, and the economic conditions of the day, the amount of alimony awarded for the benefit of the joint child is high. Considering the principle of fairness in Article 4 of the Turkish Civil Code, the court should have decided on a more appropriate amount of alimony. The written ruling, which does not take this into account, is contrary to procedure and law.
CONCLUSION:
The appealed decision was unanimously overturned due to the reasons stated in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 above, and the other parts of the appeal not covered by the reversal were approved for the reason stated in paragraph 1 above.
It was unanimously decided that the appeal fee shall be refunded to the payer upon request within 15 days of notification of this decision, with the possibility of correction remaining open. 26.06.2018 (Tuesday)