A Man That Refuses to Visit Relatives of Their Wife Is Attributed As Faulty

A defect imposed on a spouse in divorce cases also applies to the other spouse in another case. Since the decisions of the Supreme Court are made according to specific events, the phrases “male” or” female” are used. It should not be assumed that there is a difference. In the current case, the wife who refused to meet with some relatives of the man and did not make a holiday visit was considered defective. You can look at the example Supreme Court decision.

 

 

2. Legal Department

 

Base Number: 2016/4522

 

Decision Number: 2017/9803

 

“Case Law Text”

Court :Family Court

Case type: divorce

At the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, the provision given by the Local Court, the date and number shown above, by the plaintiff man, in terms of determining the defect, compensation and alimony appreciated by the woman; the defendant woman appealed for all, the documents were read and discussed decisively:

In the case petition, it is necessary to show clear summaries of all cases that are the basis of the plaintiff’s claim under the ordinal number (HMK m. 119/1-e). The court may not spontaneously examine cases that are not duly tolerated by the plaintiff. Cause and basis of action cases must be clearly and concretely presented in accordance with the proof and the defense of the opposing party.The court decided to accept the case on the basis of the case ” the defendant woman does not want to meet with some relatives of the man, visit him on holiday”, which was not duly put forward by the plaintiff man. In addition, the defective behavior of the defendant woman, which requires a divorce, cannot be proven. According to the situation that occurred, the decision to dismiss the case should have been made, while the decision to accept the case in writing was not found correct and required to overturn it.

Conclusion: it was unanimously decided that the Appellate provision was overturned for the reason shown above, that there was no place for the plaintiff’s appeals to be examined according to the reason for the overturning, that the appellate advance fee should be returned to the depositors upon request, and that the way to correct the decision was clear within 15 days of the notification of this decision. 21.09.2017 (Thu.)