T.C.
SUPREME
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW
- 2008/2-695
- 2008/710
- 26.11.2008
* Shaking from the foundation of the marital union ( the plaintiff is the defendant
That he caused him financial difficulties and suffered economic violence
Claim-That Their Divorce Will Be Decided )
* Divorce ( in which the parties have been married for 34 years/the plaintiff to the defendant himself
His claim that he was experiencing financial difficulties and economic violence –
Their Divorce Will Be Decided )
* Economic violence ( shaken from the foundation of marital union/plaintiff
The Defendant’s Claim That He Caused Him Financial Difficulties – Their Divorce
To Be Decided )
4721 / m.166
Summary: in a divorce case, the plaintiff’s attorney is a belligerent and subsistence structure of the defendant
that is, the claimant’s salary while working, and his pension after retirement
he said he took it from him, he wanted him to get along with it by giving him very little money, the parties
a long time ago, they were separated from each other, in separate rooms like two strange people
arguing that they had begun to live, the parties ‘ divorces, material in favor of the plaintiff,
he requested and sued for non-pecuniary compensation. Court ” long
years have to endure his wife’s frugality in a measure of over-calculating and stingy
the remaining women live free and comfortable in the economic and social sphere and economic
he said:”We need to make a decision to accept the case he has filed to get rid of violence.”
the grounds were resisted in the previous decision. The decision to resist is in place.
Lawsuit : from the case of “ divorce, material and moral decriminalization ” between the parties
at the end of the trial, a divorce case was filed by the Family Court.
acceptance, partial acceptance of a case for material compensation, a case for moral compensation
23.03.2007 day and 2006/318 B., 2007/329 B. numbered decisions
at the request of the defendant’s attorney, the Supreme Court 2.Legal Department
15.04.2008 day and 2007/12410 B., 2008/5373 D. with numbered declaration;
(…After the events in the plaintiff’s witness statements, the marital union continued
events transferred from the plaintiff cannot be based on divorce.
In accordance with article 166/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code; divorce decision can be made
for a marriage union, to maintain a common life is not expected from spouses
it has to be constant that it’s shaken from its foundation. However, the plaintiff’s witnesses heard
part of his words are based on Article 166/1 of the Turkish Civil Code
statements that are not conducive to acceptance of the state of concussion, and some of them are the cause and
saiki consists of explanations that are not explained and are far from convincing. With this reputation
the dismissal of the case was due to an error in the discretion of the evidence, with insufficient grounds
the decision to divorce is against the procedure and the law… ),
A retrial with a reversal instead of a case broken on the grounds
in the end, the court resisted the previous decision.
The law was examined by the General Assembly and appealed during the duration of the decision to resist
after it was understood and the papers in the file were read, the need was discussed:
Verdict: the case relates to a request for divorce,material and moral compensation.
The plaintiff’s attorney said that the parties were married in 1972, and that the defendant was a belligerent and impenetrable
the structure is that the claimant also retires after retiring his salary while working
he took away his pension, gave him very little money, and wanted him to get along with it,
that the parties were separated from each other long ago, separate like two foreign people
the plaintiff argued that the parties had begun to live in the rooms, and that the parties had divorced.
decision in favor of 10,000 TL material, 5,000 TL moral compensation discretion
demand and has prosecuted.
Defendant’s Attorney, any person who would upset the defendant’s spouse during the parties ‘ 34-year marriage
that his misbehavior did not exist, that the plaintiff’s claims were unfounded, that he did not live in the House
the joint decision that there was any need to, for the last three and a half years
decision to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiff received his own salary
it was reported in response.
The court’s acceptance of the divorce case, in part of the financial compensation case
his decision on his admission and rejection of the case for moral compensation, by the Special Department
because of the above-mentioned reason, the court said that ” for many years his wife was overly calculating and
a woman who has to rely on her frugality in the measure of stinginess, economic and
to live free and comfortable in the social sphere and to get rid of economic violence
the previous decision was resisted on the grounds that the case” should be decided.”
Mutual claims and defenses of the parties, minutes and evidence in the file, court
the necessary reasons described in his decision and, in particular, in the evaluation of the evidence
according to the absence of a hit, the decision to resist is in place.
However, other reasons for the appeal of the defendant’s attorney have not been examined by the special department
because there is, the file must be sent to the private circle.
Conclusion: because resistance is appropriate for the reasons described above, the file
2 for the examination of the appeals of the defendant’s attorney.Legal Department
his sending was decided by a vote at the second meeting on 26.11.2008.
VOTE AGAINST :
The parties were married on 28.08.1972. Divorce proceedings, by the plaintiff
It was opened on 03.04.2006. I mean, 34 years later.
Plaintiff witnesses heard in the file that the plaintiff worked with before retiring
they’re colleagues. Only one is the plaintiff’s brother. With colleagues
witnesses say the defendant did not give or give the plaintiff little pocket money, the plaintiff
he can’t even order tea to his friends, he can’t spend money the way the plaintiff wants
the witness, who is the brother of the plaintiff, said the parties were constantly arguing.
because the boy ate a bowl of yoghurt, the defendant intervened.
that’s why they argued that 7 years ago, the defendant told the plaintiff that I get paid more than you do.
They explained that you said You’d contribute to the budget as much as your salary.
The plaintiff retired in 1995. Witnesses other than his brother are colleagues.
They don’t see the family. And they convey what they have heard from the plaintiff. New
they have not revealed a visible event. 11 years since 1995
they lived together and forgave each other in the events before that.
The witness, who is the brother of the plaintiff, made the plaintiff feed the child a bowl of yogurt
he said the parties were arguing. A child of the parties in the population register
it is understood that it is. This child was born in 1974. 32 at the time the case was filed
he’s his age. His mother ate yogurt when he was a child, so if he ate it at the age of 2, he would eat it at 30 Dec.
the year has passed. A witness who states that the defendant will put an equal amount of money into the budget, the defendant
it does not disclose whether it has implemented it. Separation of rooms from the defendant
nor does he say it was caused. So he didn’t fault the defendant.
What all witnesses want to express is that the defendant is stingy
it’s his attitude. According to them, the defendant is so stingy that he even has enough money to buy his wife Tea
does not provide. The same stingy defendant bought an apartment in Ankara, ½ share on his wife
he registered it in the deed. The defendant is so stingy that the summer apartment he bought and
his car was registered in the name of his wife, as can be seen from witness statements
has maintained.
Both the plaintiff and the defendant are officers. The savings they make are described above
they took the car with the apartments. They live together at home in Ankara, in the summer house
they go and stay together, and they drive the car together. Claimant one time years
defendant car on way to hospital for blood pressure and kidney ailment
he didn’t take her with him, the plaintiff had to go to the hospital with dolmus, of course, his wife
it would be nice if he took her to the hospital himself, what the witness didn’t or couldn’t take her for
it doesn’t explain it. He says it’s been 3-4 years since this happened. He’s not saying anything new.
Home, cottage with the savings they made during the period when they worked
and they owned cars.
They live in their own homes in Ankara. If you have not bought this house with the savings they have made
if they were. They would have to sit on a minimum rent of 500 YTL per month. So retired
they were going to rent half their salary. They’d barely make a living with the remaining money. Frugal
is it possible to ignore them and consider this the reason for the divorce? Of course it’s not.
Just as witnesses did not reveal a new incident, they accepted the old one and the reason for lack of livelihood
they talked about events that could not have happened. Private apartment
according to case law, the parties have forgiven each other in ancient events. Because for many years again
they must have lived together.
In order for a divorce to be decided; the marriage union to maintain a common life
it must be shaken from its foundation to a degree that is not expected of them (TMK’s
166/1. ). For the reasons described, it is not shaken from the foundation of marital unity, even at all
he’s not shaken.
For the reasons described above, and the settled decisions of the Special Department, also take into account
I can’t agree with the majority’s view of divorce.
