Constantly talking about one’s ex after getting married, saying to one’s spouse, “I wish I married my ex, I would be happier with him, I regret marrying you, I miss my ex.” Saying such words is considered a fault. Because a common life in a marriage union can only continue with mutual love and respect. Words or behaviors that will shake the foundation of the common life may cause incompatibility to a degree that will not allow the continuation of the union. You can examine the sample Supreme Court Decision below, which is one of the many examples on the subject.
“Justice Text”
COURT: Family Court
TYPE OF CASE: Mutual Divorce
2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court
Base Number: 2016/10455
Decision Number: 2018/ 1541
The judgment 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, was appealed by the defendant-plaintiff man in terms of both cases, the document was read and the necessary was discussed and considered:
Although the court decided to reject the divorce case of the defendant-plaintiff man, to accept the case of the plaintiff-defendant woman, and to divorce the parties, by stating that the defendant-plaintiff man was at fault in undermining the foundation of the marriage union; From the trial and the evidence gathered, it is understood from the defendant-plaintiff man’s faults accepted by the court, that the plaintiff-defendant woman frequently mentioned her ex-lover, that she regretted marrying her husband, and that she would have been happier if she had married her ex-lover. In this case, there is a conflict that will shake the common life among the supporters to its foundation and will not allow the continuation of the unity. In the face of the course of events, the defendant-plaintiff man is right to file a lawsuit. In that case, while the divorce case of the man should be accepted, the rejection of the case was not found to be correct due to insufficient justification.
CONCLUSION: The appealed judgment was OVERFINED for the reason shown above, the divorce case of the plaintiff-defendant woman, whose re-judgment became obligatory, and the other appeal objections related to the ancillary of the divorce for the time being, that the appeal fee is returned to the depositor upon request. Within 15 days of its notification, the decision was unanimously resolved, with the possibility of rectification open. 07.02.2018 (Wed.)
