Economic abuse refers to the denial of economic freedom for individuals who are disadvantaged within the social and economic structure, as well as the negative effects and obstacles that arise during the process of achieving such freedom. Excessive stinginess within a marriage falls under the category of economic abuse. As a result of such behavior, which leads to divorce, both financial and non-financial compensation must be paid. You may review an example of a Supreme Court decision.
Law firm
Case Number: 2018/6942
Decision Number: 2018/13653
“Judgment Text”
COURT: Family Court
CASE TYPE: Mutual Divorce – Small Claims Case
The decision rendered by the local court at the conclusion of the case between the parties specified above by date and number was determined by the plaintiff-defendant woman regarding the finding of fault, the rejected compensation claims, and the amount of alimony; on the other hand, the defendant-plaintiff man filed an appeal regarding the determination of fault, the rejected claims for compensation, alimony, and the acceptance of the woman’s claim for jewelry, and the documents were reviewed, discussed, and evaluated:
1-
Based on the documents in the file, the evidence upon which the decision was based, and the legal grounds, and particularly since no error was found in the evaluation of the evidence, all appeals by the defendant-plaintiff man and the plaintiff-defendant woman outside the scope of the following paragraphs are without merit.
2-
Although the court granted the divorce by accepting the claims of both parties on the grounds that they were equally at fault in the events leading to the divorce; as understood from the hearing and the evidence gathered, in addition to the man’s wrongful conduct accepted and established by the court, it is also understood that he subjected his wife to economic abuse by acting excessively stingy. On the other hand, the statement “this is over,” attributed to the woman by the court, is actually her brother’s words and therefore cannot be attributed to her.
Furthermore, the marriage continued for some time after the statement “I can’t do this; it won’t happen”; thus, it is clear that this does not constitute grounds for a divorce. It is understood that the woman cannot be held liable, as it must be acknowledged that the man forgave her, or at the very least showed her leniency; nevertheless, as the court accepted, the woman did not want her husband to come home and left the house to avoid fulfilling her marital duties.
In light of this situation, it must be acknowledged that the defendant-plaintiff man was more seriously at fault than the plaintiff-defendant woman in the events leading to the divorce; however, the determination of fault and the written acknowledgment that the parties were equally at fault were incorrect, and this ruling needed to be overturned.
3-
As explained in the second paragraph above, in cases leading to divorce, the male defendant-plaintiff bears greater fault than the female defendant-plaintiff, and such cases also constitute a violation of the woman’s personal rights. As a result of the divorce, the woman will be deprived of her husband’s financial support. Article 174/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code contains provisions regarding the interests of women.
Under these circumstances, considering the parties’ economic and social conditions, the severity of fault, and principles of equity, while alimony should have been awarded in an amount appropriate to the woman’s interests, the denial of alimony on the grounds that the conditions for the woman’s claims for material and moral compensation were not met and that both parties were equally at fault was deemed incorrect.
4-
Considering the parties’ actual social and economic conditions, the nature of the alimony, and current economic conditions, the amount of alimony awarded to the plaintiff-defendant woman is insufficient. In accordance with the principle of equity under Article 4 of the Turkish Civil Code, the court should have ruled on a more appropriate amount of alimony. Issuing a written judgment without considering this matter is contrary to procedure and law.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons stated in paragraphs (2), (3.), and (4.) above, the appealed judgment has been OVERTURNED; the other parts of the appeal not covered by this overturn have been AFFIRMED for the reasons stated in paragraph (1.) above; since the appeal fee was paid in advance, the affirmation fee of 143.50 TL has been collected from the appellant, Bekir; no other fee is required to be collected, and it has been unanimously decided that the appeal fee, paid by Arzu upon request, shall be refunded to her within 15 days of the service of this decision, with the option to correct any errors. November 28, 2018 (Wednesday)