TC
SUPREME
COURT OF APPEALS
Case No. 2015/16407, Decision No. 2016/7878, Date: April 19, 2016
CASE:
Regarding the decision rendered by the local court at the conclusion of the case between the parties on the date and case number specified above, the plaintiff-counter-defendant man filed an appeal concerning the acceptance of the woman’s claim, the dismissal of the criminal charge, alimony for poverty, and compensation and attorney’s fees in favor of the woman; and by the defendant-counterclaimant woman regarding the amount of compensation and alimony in connection with the acceptance of the man’s claim; an appeal was filed, and the case file was reviewed and deemed necessary:
DECISION:
In light of the file reviews and the evidence gathered; as accepted by the court, the plaintiff-defendant man expelled the woman from the house and threatened her by telling her mother, “Get your daughter out of the house or I’ll kill her.” The plaintiff-defendant man is entirely at fault, and no evidence has been found to suggest that the defendant-plaintiff woman is at fault.
Article 166 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 must not be interpreted or evaluated as allowing a spouse who is entirely at fault to file a lawsuit and obtain a divorce ruling in their favor. This is because such a notion contradicts the fundamental legal principle that no one can acquire a right based solely on their own actions and entirely their own fault.
On the other hand, such a notion reintroduces the concept of divorce based on unilateral intent, which is contrary to our legal system. A person seeking divorce can fundamentally shake the foundation of the marriage to the point where its continuation is no longer expected—without any action or behavior on the part of the other spouse—and subsequently demand a divorce ruling by claiming that the marriage has already been irreparably damaged. This is precisely what Article 166 of the Turkish Civil Code stipulates.
.
According to the article, it is not necessary to be entirely blameless or less at fault to file for divorce; even the party found to be more at fault has the right to file a lawsuit; however, for a divorce to be granted, it is inevitable that the defendant has a minor fault, and this will be established. If the less at-fault spouse objects to the divorce, the mere fact of this objection is not sufficient on its own to grant a divorce. The less at-fault spouse’s objection must be deemed an abuse of rights, and it must be established that there is no interest worthy of protection for the spouse and children (TMK Art. 166/2).
Undoubtedly, in light of the current circumstances, the marital union has been fundamentally shaken, and it is not expected that the marriage will continue. However, this outcome stems entirely from the plaintiff-defendant’s attitude and conduct, and no fault attributable to the defendant-plaintiff has been identified. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff-defendant’s divorce petition must be dismissed for the reasons stated; for a divorce decision based on a misinterpretation of statutory provisions would be contrary to procedure and law.
CONCLUSION:
On April 19, 2016, by unanimous decision, it was determined that there is no basis for reviewing the appeal of the decision in question for the reasons stated above, nor is there a basis for reviewing the appeals regarding the woman’s case and the parties’ other appeals; if an advance appeal fee has been requested, it shall be refunded to the payers within 15 days of the notification of this decision, and that the avenue for correcting the decision remains open.