T.C. SUPREME
2. law office
Main Number: 2012/5303
Decision No:2012/24965
Decision Date: 17.10.2012
SUPREME COURT DECISION
COURT :Izmir 11. Family Court
DATE :23.12.2011
NUMBER : Basis no:2010/822 Decision no:2011/1189
Between the parties, the “divorce” of the case made by combining the above code given by the local court dates and the number shown at the end of judgment; plaintiff-respondent (woman); but by the defect to determine the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, injunction, associates and alimony, litigation costs and attorneys ‘ fees in terms of the defendant-the plaintiff (the husband) by the terms of their divorce, determine the defect, or a request for compensation, in support of the measure that in terms of Appeal ruled in favor of the woman, although it was thought that discussed the need to read the paperwork:
1-the decision is based on the posts with the evidence in the file gerektirici legal reasons and evidence for the nonexistence of a mistake in the case, according to the defendant-plaintiff (BIG)’s appeal as has already been seen over the objections of the divorce of events that led to the plaintiff-respondent (woman)’s personality rights and does not constitute an attack against the woman’s because non-pecuniary damages therefore in terms of the rejection of the request for the result to be accurate, considering where regular and continuous income for alimony in favor of the understanding that is not appreciated according to the plaintiff-respondent (woman) with the direction of, the appeals regarding the amount of the injunction and the participation alimony and the appeals regarding the other aspects other than the following paragraphs were found to be groundless.
2-As for the appeals of the plaintiff-defendant (woman) regarding other aspects;
a) By the court, the plaintiff-defendant (woman) was considered defective at the same rate as the defendant-plaintiff husband, and accordingly, the claim for financial compensation was rejected. However, from the investigation conducted and the evidence collected, it is understood that the defendant-plaintiff (husband) does not fulfill his duties related to the marital union, creates a separate budget, is frugal to the extent of stinginess, smells of sweat by not paying attention to body cleanliness. As a result of these attitudes and behaviors of the husband, which are realized and show continuity, the marriage union has been shaken from its foundation and there is no defect that can be attributed to the woman. In this case, the woman is considered defective at the same rate as the other party and, accordingly, financial compensation (TMK. md. 174/1) the rejection of his request was unjustified and required a violation.
b) Since the divorce case opened and joined by the defendant-plaintiff (husband) was rejected as unjustified, it was also not found correct that the power of attorney fee was not appreciated due to the rejection of this case for the benefit of the plaintiff-defendant (woman), who represented herself with a proxy in the case.
CONCLUSION: The appealed judgment is above 2. the DETERIORATION of the article for the reasons shown in subparagraphs (a) and (b), the parts of the subject of appeal that are outside the scope of the deterioration are listed above. a unanimous decision to APPROVE it for the reason indicated in the paragraph, to return the advance fee for the appeal to the depositor, and to correct the decision within 15 days from the notification of this decision, so that the way to correct the decision is open
it was given.17.10.2012
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.