Law Firm
Case Number: 2018/6836
Decision Number: 2019/7645
“Judgment Text”
COURT: Family Court
CASE TYPE: Divorce
PARTY FILING THE MOTION TO AMEND THE DECISION: Defendant
The date, subject matter, and parties of the aforementioned ruling; a request for correction of our Chamber’s decision dated April 18, 2018, and numbered 2016/15634-2018/5203, regarding partial annulment and partial confirmation, has been filed; the document has been reviewed and the necessity assessed;
Although the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100 entered into force on October 1, 2011, pursuant to subparagraph (1) of the transitional Article 3 added to this Code by Law No. 6217, Decisions rendered prior to the commencement of operations by the Regional Courts of Justice and up to the finalization of Law No. 1086 on September 26, 2014, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Articles 427 through 454 as they existed prior to the amendments made by Law No. 5236. Therefore, the request for reconsideration of the decision required review.
1-
As a result of the divorce case filed by the plaintiff woman with the court; the court ruled to grant the divorce, award alimony in favor of the plaintiff woman, and dismiss the parties’ claims for compensation. It was decided to overturn the decision on the grounds that the plaintiff woman had not lost her right to file a lawsuit and present evidence, that the accusation against the plaintiff woman was unfounded, that the defendant man was entirely at fault in this case, and that material and moral compensation should be awarded in favor of the plaintiff woman.
Upon re-examination of the case file: The defendant man was notified of the complaint on January 6, 2015; the defendant’s attorney submitted the power of attorney along with a petition dated January 16, 2015, and requested an extension of the response period; the court granted the defendant an additional two weeks to submit his answer.
.
It is understood that the defendant submitted his answer on time in 2015. Accordingly, the defendant also has the right to present facts and evidence, and since the parties are deemed equally at fault based on the facts accepted by the court, there is no procedural irregularity in the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims for compensation. However, since this matter was overlooked during the initial review and the decision was set aside, the defendant’s motion for correction was granted, and our decision dated April 18, 2018, No. 2018, has been revoked. Articles 2 and 3 regarding the necessity of the judgment should have been removed; the court’s decision should be upheld in terms of determining fault based on the stated grounds and rejecting the plaintiff’s claims for compensation.
2-
The plaintiff stated in her complaint that she worked at a bank, but in her answer, she stated that she had left her job. A notice sent by the bank where the plaintiff worked indicated that she had resigned on November 19, 2014, and witnesses also stated that she had resigned believing her employment contract would be terminated. A decision granting alimony for poverty cannot be made in favor of a woman who voluntarily left her job. In this case, the assessment of alimony in favor of the plaintiff is incorrect. However, since this issue was overlooked during the initial review, the defendant’s request to amend the alimony decision was granted, and the partial alimony approval decision issued on April 18, 2018, under case no. 2016/15634 and decision no. 2018/5203, was revoked. The decision regarding alimony should have been revoked.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons stated in the first and second paragraphs above, the defendant’s request for correction is in accordance with Articles 440–442 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Our decisions dated April 18, 2018, numbered 2016/15634 and 2018/5203, have been revoked in accordance with the sworn statement regarding the alimony awarded in favor of the plaintiff, and the ruling on alimony has been overturned for the reasons explained above. Our decisions dated April 18, 2018, numbered 2016/15634 and 2018/5203, partially affirm the finding of fault regarding the plaintiff woman —and the reversal of the dismissed compensation claims of the plaintiff woman, the AFFIRMATION of the judgment regarding the finding of fault and the dismissed compensation claims of the plaintiff woman, and the refund of the decision correction fee to the person who paid it upon request were unanimously decided. June 24, 2019 (Monday)