T.R.
SUPREME COURT
LAW GENERAL ASSEMBLY
E. 2008/2-695
K. 2008/710
T. 26.11.2008
• SHAKING THE FOUNDATION OF THE MARRIAL UNION ( Plaintiff’s Defendant’s
that he has suffered financial hardship and that he has suffered economic violence.
Allegation – Their Divorce Will Be Decided)
• DIVORCE ( The Parties Have Been Married For 34 Years / Plaintiff’s Defendant Himself
Alleged That He Suffered Financial Difficulty and Economic Violence –
Their Divorce Will Be Decided)
• ECONOMIC VIOLENCE (Marriage Union Shaken to Its Foundation/Plaintiff’s
The Defendant’s Allegation That He Is Giving Him Financial Hardship – To Their Divorce
to be decided)
4721/m.166
SUMMARY: In the divorce case; the plaintiff’s attorney, the defendant’s belligerent and incompatible nature
that the plaintiff received his salary while working and his pension after retirement.
that he took from her, that he wanted her to live with him by giving him very little money, that the parties
that you’ve been cut off from each other a long time ago, in separate rooms like two strangers
claiming that they started to live, divorce of the parties, financial,
demanded and sued for the judgment of non-pecuniary damages. Court “long
years had to rely on his wife’s overly calculated and stingy frugality.
the remaining women to live freely and comfortably in the economic and social field and
It is necessary to decide on the acceptance of the lawsuit filed to get rid of the violence”
was resisted in the previous decision. The decision to resist is right.
CASE: From the “divorce, material and moral compensation” case between the parties
at the end of the trial due to; A… … the decision of the divorce case by the Family Court
acceptance, partial acceptance of the pecuniary damage claim,
the decision on the rejection of the decision dated 23.03.2007 and numbered 2006/318 E., 2007/329 K.
Upon the request of the defendant’s attorney, the 2nd Law Department of the Court of Cassation
With the decision dated 15.04.2008 and numbered 2007/12410 E., 2008/5373 K.;
( … After the events mentioned in the plaintiff’s witness statements, the marriage union continued.
and the events transferred from the plaintiff woman cannot be taken as a basis for divorce.
Pursuant to article 166/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code; Divorce decision
For the marriage union, it is not expected from the spouses to continue the common life.
It must be fixed that it has been shaken from its foundation. However, the plaintiff’s witnesses
Some of his words are based on the basis of article 166/1 of the Turkish Civil Code.
These are the statements that are not suitable for accepting the state of shaking, and some of them are the reasons and reasons.
It consists of unexplained and unconvincing explanations. As such
While the case should be rejected, by making a mistake in the appraisal of the evidence, it was given insufficient justification.
the decision to divorce is against the procedure and the law… ),
Re-trial by being turned away from the place of the file by corrupting its justification
finally; The court has resisted in the previous decision.
It was reviewed by the General Assembly of Law and the decision of resistance was appealed in due time.
After it was understood and the papers in the file were read, the necessity was discussed:
DECISION: The case is about the request for divorce, material and moral compensation.
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the parties were married in 1972 and that the defendant had a quarrelsome and disagreeable relationship.
structure, the claimant’s salary while working and retiring after retirement.
that he took his pension from him, that he wanted her to live with him by giving him very little money,
that the parties had been separated from each other a long time ago, that they were separated like two strangers.
claiming that they started to live in the rooms, the divorce of the parties, the plaintiff
10,000 YTL pecuniary damage and 5,000 YTL non-pecuniary damage.
claimed and sued.
During the 34 years of marriage of the parties, the counsel of the defendant does not take any action that will upset the spouse of the defendant.
bad behavior, the claims of the plaintiff are unfounded,
for the last three and a half years, that all kinds of needs for
The case was dismissed, claiming that the plaintiff received his own salary.
reported in response.
The court’s acceptance of the divorce case, the partial compensation of the pecuniary damage
The decision of the Special Chamber to accept and reject the non-pecuniary damage lawsuit.
overturned for the above-mentioned reason, by the court “his wife for many years overly calculated and
Having to rely on her frugality to the extent of stinginess, the economic and
in order to live freely and comfortably in the social field and to get rid of economic violence.
It was resisted in the previous decision on the grounds that the acceptance of the case should be decided”.
The mutual claims and defenses of the parties, the minutes and evidence in the file, the court
the compelling reasons explained in the decision and especially in the evaluation of the evidence.
According to the absence of any inaccuracy, the decision to resist is appropriate.
However, the other grounds of appeal of the defendant’s attorney were not examined by the special chamber.
the file must be sent to the Special Office.
CONCLUSION: Since the resistance was found appropriate for the reasons explained above, the file
to the 2nd Law Office for the examination of the defendant’s attorney’s appeals.
It was decided by a majority of votes at the second meeting on 26.11.2008 that he should be sent.
VOTE AGAINST:
The parties dated 28.08.1972
They got married in India. Divorce by plaintiff
It was opened on 03.04.2006. So 34 years later.
Plaintiff’s witnesses heard in the file are those with whom the plaintiff worked before retiring.
are colleagues. Only one is the plaintiff’s brother. with coworkers
witnesses testify that the defendant did not give pocket money to the plaintiff or gave little
that he could not even offer tea to his friends, that he could not spend money as the plaintiff wanted.
They reported that the witness, who is the brother of the plaintiff, argued that the parties were constantly arguing.
that they could not provide, that the defendant intervened because the child ate a bowl of yogurt,
That’s why they argued, 7 years ago, the defendant’s claimant is getting more salary than you.
They have stated that they will contribute to the budget as much as your salary.
Plaintiff retired in 1995. Witnesses other than his brother are his colleagues.
They do not meet as a family. And they report what they heard from the plaintiff. new
They did not reveal anything specific. Parties 11 years since 1995
They lived together before and forgave each other in the events before that.
The witness, who is the plaintiff’s brother, is the plaintiff’s making the child eat a bowl of yogurt.
He said that the parties were arguing. One child of the parties in the civil registry
it is understood to be. This child was born in 1974. 32 at the time of filing
years old. Since his mother fed him yoghurt when he was a child, if he eats it at the age of 2, it will be 30 times.
year has passed. The witness stating that the defendant will put an equal amount of money in the budget,
It does not explain whether it implements it or not. The separation of the rooms from the defendant
It doesn’t say where it originated. In other words, he did not attribute fault to the defendant.
The point that all the witnesses want to express is the stinginess of the defendant.
is the attitude. According to them, the defendant is so stingy that he does not even have enough money to buy tea for his wife.
does not give. The same stingy defendant bought an apartment in Ankara and shared ½ of his share on his wife.
registered in the land registry. The defendant is so stingy that the summer flat he bought and
As it is understood from the witness statements, it is registered in the name of his wife.
has done.
Both the plaintiff and the defendant are civil servants. With the savings they make, the above-mentioned
They bought the flats and the car. They live together in the house in Ankara, to the summer house.
They go and stay together, and they use the car together. Plaintiff once
The defendant car first went to the hospital due to blood pressure and kidney disease.
He did not take him with him, the plaintiff had to go to the hospital by minibus, of course, he lost his wife.
It would be better if he took him to the hospital himself, the witness why he did not take or could not take
does not explain. He says it has been 3-4 years since this incident. It doesn’t say anything new.
Two retired small civil servants with the savings they made during their working period, house, summer
and own cars.
They live in their own house in Ankara. If they did not buy this house with their savings
if they were. They would have to live at a minimum rent of 500 YTL per month. So retired
they would pay half of their salary as house rent. They would have a hard time getting along with the remaining money. Frugal
Is it possible to find them strange and consider this a reason for divorce? Of course not.
The Witnesses did not reveal a new event, but the old and the reason for the disagreement were accepted.
They talked about impossible events. Private Office settled
According to their jurisprudence, the parties forgave each other in the past events. For many years again
they lived together.
In order to decide on divorce; continuation of the common life of the marital union
It should be shaken from its foundation in an unexpected way (TMK.nun
166/1.art. ). For the reasons explained, the marriage union has not been shaken from its foundation, or even at all.
not shaken.
For the reasons explained above and taking into account the settled decisions of the Special Chamber
I cannot agree with the majority’s view of divorce.
