T.C.
SUPREME
- law office
E. 2015/15599
K. 2018/332
T. 15.1.2018
At the end of the trial between the parties in the case described above Dec
The court decided to dismiss the case and appeal the decision by the plaintiff
on it, the Apartment’s file was examined, the need was considered:
DECISION : Conditional follow-up based on the statement that the debtor’s deputy will receive alimony against his client
that it was launched, but alimony is paid regularly, as of June 2013
stating that the joint children remain with his client, he requested 6,000.00 together with interest
TL has requested that the cancellation of the follow-up be decided in terms of the alimony of the subsidiary.
The decision of the court to change custody was finalized on 01.10.2014, custody
a request for the abolition of subsidiary alimony in the court decision on its replacement
and since there is no provision, the alimony lasts until 01/10/2014, which is requested in the follow-up
it has been decided to reject the appeal on the grounds that the receivable belongs to before this date and
the judgment was appealed by the debtor’s deputy.
In the case law of the Supreme Court, which has gained continuity; in terms of the child support ruled in favor of
in order for the debtor to be held accountable for paying alimony, the child’s creditor must
if the borrower claims that the child is staying with him, he must be found
in this case, the rule is adopted that this claim can be proved by any evidence, including a witness.
In the concrete case, the basis of the follow-up is … 2. The basis of the Family Court dated 20.01.2012 2012/25
2012/22 Decision No. 250,00 following the finalization of the decision for two joint children with the decree
şer TL subsidiary alimony was decided and the decision was finalized on 27.02.2012. Lender
by proxy … 4. In the follow-up file No. 2014/10726 of the Enforcement Agency dated 22.08.2014
participation and poverty alimony in the period of 27.08.2013- 27.07.2014 with a follow-up request
receivables have been requested. … 1. The basis of the Family Court dated 03.06.2014 2014/31 2014/294
According to decision No. 1, joint custody of the children was granted to the father and the decision was made on 01.10.2014
it has been finalized in its history. Alimony of the debtor in respect of children for whom alimony has been ruled in favor
in order to be held responsible for the payment, the child must be with the creditor. Debt
suggesting the contrary, the joint venture has been on its side since June 2013
he claims that he is staying, and this claim can be proved by any evidence. Witness by the debtor party
his evidence is based on it. Accordingly, the Court has established that the joint children as of June 2013
from the decision to leave without hearing the witnesses of the debtor that the father is staying with
he’s a no-hitter.
CONCLUSION: The court decision on the adoption of appeals by the debtor’s deputy is written above
366 of the IIK and 428 of the HUMK for reasons. in accordance with the articles of DEROGATION, by the parties
366/3 the EBL. according to Article 10 of the decree of the Chamber of the Supreme Court against extradition from the date of notification
a decision can be requested to correct it within a day, and if an advance fee is requested
extradition to the appellant was decided unanimously on 15.01.2018.
