2. Civil Department

Base Number: 2018/6836

Decision Number: 2019/7645

“text of jurisprudence”

Court :Family Court
Case type: divorce
Seeking correction of decision : defendant

18.04.2018 day and 2016/15634-2018/5203 of our department on the partial deterioration-partial approval of the provision shown above, the document was read, the requirement was considered;
Although the law on Civil Procedure 6100 entered into force on 1.10.2011, temporary 3, which was added to this law by law 6217. Article (1.) in paragraph 427 to 454 before the amendment of Law No. 1086 of 26.09.2014 and Law No. 5236 on decisions made before the date of commencement of the District Court Courts, until it is finalized. as it was established that the implementation of the provisions of the article would continue, the request for correction of the decision had to be examined.
1-as a result of a divorce lawsuit filed by the plaintiff woman in the court; with the acceptance of the divorce of the parties to the case, the plaintiff alimony in favor of the rejection of the claims of the parties and the woman decided to to this the appeal against the decision of the parties on the date the defendant with the notice and principles 2016/15634 our apartment 18.04.2018 2018/5203 the man’s Decision No. on the case did not respond in time, in fact, lost the right to present evidence and sliding forward, therefore, not correct the defect to the woman the installation of the plaintiff, where the defendant in this case the boy is flawed, pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages in favor of the plaintiff, the woman with the justification that the provision should be decided to the corruption of, the defendant asked for a correction of the decision during the period of the man.
The file re-examination of the defendant 06.01.2015 upon notification of the man’s petition on the defendant with the petition of counsel to file a power of attorney dated 16.01.2015 offered by both the requested extension of time to answer both, the court found that the respondent was given an additional period of 2 weeks to present an answer to the petition, whereupon the counsel for the defendant presented a petition in the history of time, it is understood that the answer 30.01.2015. Accordingly, the defendant man also has the right to put forward the case and present evidence, as well as the acceptance that the parties are equally flawed according to the events agreed and realized by the court, and there are no irregularities in the refusal of the plaintiff woman’s claims for compensation. However, since this issue was overlooked in the first court of review and it was decided to break the provision, with the acceptance of the defendant’s request for correction of the decision, our apartment dated 18.04.2018, 2016/15634 basis and 2018/5203 decision No.2 on the need to determine the defect and to rule on material and moral compensation in favor of the plaintiff woman. and 3. it was necessary to determine the removal of the bents, the court’s decision to determine the defect for the reason shown, and to also approve the aspects of the denial of the plaintiff’s claims for compensation.
2-the plaintiff woman declared that she worked at the bank in the petition for the lawsuit, and in the petition for the answer to the answer, she quit the job she was working in. In the notice sent from the bank where the plaintiff woman worked in the file, the plaintiff woman was reported to have left her job on 19.11.2014, and the witnesses heard said that the plaintiff woman had resigned, thinking that the employment contract would be terminated. Poverty alimony cannot be ruled for the benefit of a woman who leaves her job of her own free will. In that case, the assessment of poverty alimony for the benefit of the plaintiff was not correct. However, this statement since I missed during the first review of the defendant, the man with the acceptance of the request for correction of the decision to alimony our apartment 18.04.2018 date, the abolition of the sentence of ratification Decision No. 2018/5203 2016/15634 principles and partly for alimony, the above-described reason for the deterioration in the terms of the alimony provision had to decide.
Result: 1 above. and 2. 440-442 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the defendant’s request for correction of the decision for the reasons indicated in paragraphs. in accordance with the articles of Adoption, our department dated 18.04.2018, 2016/15634 basis and 2018/5203 Decision No.of the declaration of approval for poverty alimony ruled in favor of the plaintiff woman was removed in terms of the provision in terms of poverty alimony for the reason described above, 1. for the reason shown in the bent, it was unanimously decided that the Department dated 18.04.2018, 2016/15634 basis and 2018/5203 decision no.partially approve-partially cancel the decision to cancel the decision in terms of the plaintiff’s rejected claims for damages, determine the defect and approve the decision in terms of the plaintiff’s rejected claims for damages, return the decision correction fee to the Depositor on request. 24.06.2019 (Mon.)

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir