A person who does not have income and wealth and goes to mandatory military service cannot be held responsible for alimony. You can look at the example Supreme Court decision.
- Legal Department
Base Number: 2016/20858
Decision Number: 2018/8072
“Case Law Text”
Court :First Instance Law (Family) Court
Case type: mutual divorce
Made between the parties of the case at the end of the code number shown above is given by the local court dates and the provision of the plaintiff-the defendant by men against women accepted the case, to determine the defect himself, rejected claims, alimony, and child custody, in terms of the defendant-plaintiff by the woman against the defect to determine rejected claims himself, poverty and participation in terms of the amount of alimony the length of the appeal, it was thought that discussed the need to read the paperwork:
1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, and the reasons in accordance with the law, and in particular, there is no error in the evaluation of the evidence, the appeals of the parties that fall outside the scope of the following paragraphs are unwarranted.
2 – although the court has decided to accept both divorce cases by considering the parties equally flawed in the events leading to divorce; from the trial and the evidence collected, the plaintiff – Counter-Defendant did not provide independent housing, threatened his wife, physically abused his wife, insulted his wife, did not contact his family, his family’s interference in the marriage, threatened and insulted his wife Julius; it is understood that the defendant-counter-plaintiff insulted his wife, neglected his union duties, and remained silent about his family’s interference in the marriage, threatening and insulting his wife. According to this situation, in cases that lead to divorce, the defendant-the plaintiff-the Counter-Defendant man should be admitted to be more severely defective than the counter-plaintiff woman. However, it was not right for the parties to be considered equally flawed and required disruption.
3-above 2. in cases that lead to divorce for the reason shown in the code, the plaintiff-defendant male is severely defective, and these defective behaviors also constitute an attack on the rights of the woman’s personality. As a result of the divorce, the woman was deprived of her partner’s financial support. The conditions of Article 174/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code for the benefit of women were formed. In the context of the social and economic situation of the parties, the weight of the defects and the principle of entitlement, material and moral compensation for the benefit of women was required, while the decision to reject it in writing was not correct and required disruption.
4-Plaintiff-it is understood that the Counter-Defendant man was conscripted during the trial. A man who performs mandatory military service and does not have any income or wealth cannot be held responsible for alimony. (No. 5/11 of 12.12.1966 supreme court desicions) while the plaintiff-defendant man should not be held responsible for the alimony of the measure during the military service period, it was not right to rule on the alimony of the measure for the benefit of the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman and common child to cover this period.
5-according to the social and economic situation of the parties, the nature of alimony, and the economic conditions of the day, the poverty alimony appreciated by the defendant and the claimant woman is excessive. 4 Of The Turkish Civil Code By The Court. taking into account the principle of fairness in the article, a more appropriate amount of alimony should be ruled. It is against the procedure and the law to establish a provision in writing without regard to this aspect.
6-according to the social and economic situation of the parties, the nature of alimony, the economic conditions of the day, the alimony of the subsidiary, which is appreciated for the benefit of the common child, is excessive. 4 Of The Turkish Civil Code By The Court. taking into account the principle of fairness in the article, more appropriate alimony should be ruled. It is against the procedure and the law to establish a provision in writing without regard to this aspect.
Conclusion: 2 above the appellant provision., 3., 4., 5. and 6. for the reasons given in paragraphs corruption, destruction outside the scope of the subject to appeal of the other parts of above 1. confirmation of the reason shown in the code
in case of request, the appeal was unanimously decided to return the advance fee to the depositor, with the way to correct the decision open within 15 days of notification of this decision. 26.06.2018 (Tuesday)