- Law Office
Base Number: 2016/20858
Decision Number: 2018/8072
“Justice Text”
COURT: Civil (Family) Court of First Instance
TYPE OF CASE: Mutual Divorce
The judgment was given by the local court at the end of the proceedings of the case between the parties, the date and number of which is shown above, is determined by the plaintiff-counter-defendant man, in terms of the woman’s accepted case, the determination of fault, she rejected compensation claims, alimony and custody, and the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman, determination, his rejected claims for compensation, poverty and the amount of participation alimony were appealed, the documents were read and the necessary was discussed and considered:
1-According to the writings in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, legal reasons, and in particular, there is no mistake in the appraisal of the evidence, the appeal objections of the parties that fall outside the scope of the following paragraphs are unfounded.
2- Although the court decided to accept both divorce cases by accepting the parties as equally defective in the events leading to the divorce; From the trial and the evidence gathered, the plaintiff-counter-defendant man did not provide independent housing, threatened his wife, inflicted physical violence on his wife, insulted him, did not let his wife meet with his family, remained silent about his family’s intervention in marriage, threatening and insulting his wife; it is understood that the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman insulted her husband, neglected her union duties, remained silent when her family intervened in the marriage, threatened and insulted her husband. According to this situation, it should be accepted that the plaintiff-counter-defendant man is more severely flawed than the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman in the events leading to the divorce. In this situation, it was not correct to accept the parties as an equally defective and necessitated reversal.
3- In cases that cause divorce due to the reason shown in the second paragraph above, the plaintiff-defendant man is seriously flawed, and these faulty behaviours also constitute an attack on the personality rights of the woman. As a result of the divorce, the woman was deprived of her husband’s financial support. For the benefit of women, the conditions of article 174/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code have been met. In the framework of the social and economic conditions of the parties, the gravity of the faults and the principle of fairness, it was not correct to reject the decision in writing, while the material and moral compensation for the benefit of the woman was required.
4-It is understood that the plaintiff-counter-defendant man was drafted during the trial. A man who is doing his compulsory military service and has no income or wealth cannot be held responsible for alimony. While the plaintiff-defendant man should not be held responsible for the provisional alimony during his military service period, it was not correct to rule on the provisional alimony for the benefit of the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman and their common child, including this period.
5- According to the social and economic conditions of the parties, the nature of the alimony, and the economic conditions of the day, the poverty alimony awarded to the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman is high. A more appropriate amount of alimony should be awarded by the court, taking into account the principle of equity in Article 4 of the Turkish Civil Code. It is against the procedure and the law to make a written judgment without observing this aspect.
6- According to the social and economic conditions of the parties, the nature of the alimony, and the economic conditions of the day, the child support, which is appreciated for the benefit of the common child, is high. Considering the principle of equity in Article 4 of the Turkish Civil Code, the court should decide on more appropriate alimony. It is against the procedure and the law to make a written judgment without observing this aspect.
CONCLUSION: The appealed judgment is OVERFINED for the reasons set forth in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th paragraphs above, and the other parts of the appeal, which are outside the scope of the reversal, are APPROVED for the reason stated in the 1st paragraph above.
It was unanimously decided that the appeal fee be returned to the depositor upon request, within 15 days following the notification of this decision, with the possibility of rectification open. 26.06.2018 (Tuesday)
