2nd Civil Chamber
Case Number: 2019/5569
Decision Number: 2019/12075
“Judicial Precedent Text”
COURT: Konya Regional Court of Appeal, 2nd Civil Chamber
CASE TYPE: Divorce
Since the regional court of appeals civil chamber issued its decision following the trial between the parties, the above-mentioned date and number were specified by the plaintiff woman in terms of precautionary and poverty alimony; by the defendant man in terms of fault determination, alimony, and compensation to be delivered, the documents were read and their appropriateness was considered:
1-Based on the documents in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, and the relevant reasons, and in particular, as no error is found in the assessment of the evidence, the defendant’s objections, except for the following, are unfounded.
2-As a result of the trial of the divorce case filed by the woman, the court of first instance; The court ruled that the divorce was valid under Article 166/1 of the Turkish Civil Code, that the man was entirely at fault, that the woman was entitled to material and moral damages, and that the woman’s claim for her share and alimony was rejected. The plaintiff woman appealed the rejection of the alimony claim, and the defendant man appealed the findings of fault and damages. The regional court of appeal, which reviewed the appeal, ruled that the man was entirely at fault and dismissed all of his objections, as well as all of the woman’s objections except those regarding her situation and alimony for poverty, and thus upheld the original ruling.
Regarding the woman’s objection concerning the precautionary and poverty alimony, the second paragraph of the first instance court’s decision was removed and replaced with “The 200 TL precautionary alimony shall be collected from the defendant as the reason for the repeated alimony payments, effective from the time of the lawsuit, and that upon the decision becoming final, the maintenance shall continue as monthly maintenance of 350 TL, and the person shall be held responsible for maintenance between the date of 12/06/2018 and the date of conditional release recorded as 04/12/2019
The ruling was made without including an enforcement clause. The defendant man’s temporary detention or imprisonment in a penal institution does not require him to be held responsible for the children’s poverty alimony.
Considering that the plaintiff woman was seriously at fault in the events leading to the divorce and that she would be at fault due to the permanent divorce, the plaintiff woman should be awarded an appropriate amount of poverty alimony (TMK m. 175) from the date the decision becomes final in the country; The regional court of appeal did not find it correct to rule that the defendant man should not be held liable for the alimony recorded between June 12, 2018, when he entered the prison, and December 4, 2019, the date of his conditional release, and that the ruling should not include a payment order, and did not overturn the ruling.
CONCLUSION: The appealed ruling is REVERSED for the reasons set forth in paragraph (2) above, while the other sections not covered by the reversal are AFFIRMED as outlined in paragraph (1) above. The costs specified below are imposed on the defendant man, who is not subject to reversal, and the follow-up costs are offset by 218.50 TL. The plaintiff woman who paid the claim application fee shall be refunded, and the file shall be transferred to the relevant regional court of justice, it was unanimously decided. 10.12.2019 (Tuesday)