2. Legal Department

Base Number: 2019/5569

Decision Number: 2019/12075

“Case Law Text”

Court: Konya District Court 2. Legal Department
Case type: divorce

At the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, the provision given by the legal department of the District Court Court, the date and number shown above, was appealed by the plaintiff woman in terms of precautionary measures and poverty support; and by the defendant man in terms of defect determination, alimony and compensation, the documents were read and discussed decisively:
1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons in accordance with the law, and in particular, there is no error in the evaluation of the evidence, all the appeals of the defendant man, the plaintiff woman, which are outside the scope of the following bend, are inappropriate.
2-the woman by the tribunal of First Instance as a result of divorce filed by the judgment of divorce by the parties pursuant to TMK 166/1, is flawed because man is completely in favor of the moral and material compensation to the payment of a betting woman, the woman decided to refuse the request for alimony and the measure of the plaintiff by a woman; measure the denial of the defendant by a male and alimony; after applying to the law of Appeal in terms of flaw detection and compensation, the district court that conducted the appeal review decided to fundamentally reject all objections of the man by betting that the man was completely defective, and the woman’s objections, which were excluded from the injunction and poverty support, were appealed by the parties for the same reasons.
2 from the provision of the decision of the court of First Instance on the objection of the plaintiff woman to the injunction and alimony of poverty by the District Court. instead of removing bendin “to be valid from the date of the case and not to cause repeated alimony, 200 TL measure alimony to be given to the plaintiff by taking from the defendant, with the finalization of the decision to continue alimony as 350 TL poverty alimony per month, the date of 12/06/2018 when the man entered prison and the conditional release date 04/12/2019
among them, it was decided to write the sentence” not to be held responsible for alimony”, and the decency was made so that it did not contain the EDA provision. The presence of a defendant in a prison for a period of time as a prisoner or convict does not require that he be held responsible for poverty support. Since it is not true that the plaintiff is severely defective in the events that lead to divorce, and it is also fixed that he will fall into poverty due to divorce, the plaintiff has the appropriate amount of poverty alimony (TMK m) from the date of conclusion of the decision for the benefit of the woman (TMK m). 175) should be ruled; the District Court has ruled that the defendant is not responsible for alimony between 12/06/2018, when the man enters prison for the benefit of the male, and 04/12/2019, which is the conditional release date, and does not include the EDA provision, the provision was not found correct, required to decry.
Conclusion: above the appellant provision (2.) corruption for the reasons shown in the bent, while other parts of the subject matter of Appeal, which are outside the scope of violation, are above (1.) to be approved for the reason shown in the bent, to be charged to the appellant male of the fee written below, to be deducted from the advance fee of TL 218.50. it was unanimously decided that since the appellate application fee was received in advance, there was no room for other fees to be received, that the appellate advance fee should be returned to the plaintiff woman who deposited the appellate fee, and that the file should be sent to the legal department of the relevant District Court. 10.12.2019 (Tuesday)

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir