3. Legal Department
Base Number: 2016/10871
Decision Number: 2017/227
“Case Law Text”
COURT :FAMILY COURT
After the decision to accept the appeal, the papers in the file were read and considered necessary after the decision was made to accept the appeal. Dec.:
In the petition of the Attorney General of the plaintiff; in agreement with the decision of the parties to the divorce, the divorce of your client’s decision to award the plaintiff $ 300 monthly decided to pay alimony if the decision on 10/05/2005 overnight, the defendant’s need for alimony exists, that his client has no income, his new wife and his family to Refuge to earn a living, the family is provided with the help of the wife, the defendant’s demand for payment of child support is a completely malicious, noting that his client continues to commit against the decision of the precautionary suspension of the enforcement proceedings legal alimony alimony, he demanded and sued the decision to abolish poverty alimony, the amount of alimony that had been committed and requested by enforcement follow-up.
The answer of the defendant deputy regular client and a steady income securities and it is not a real estate asset, the financial situation of the plaintiff’s family and the opportunities that are in place, with the financial support of both their parents both extremely prosperous living of the family and his wife, citing a follow-up precautionary suspension due to violation of procedure and the law of demand denial of a request for the removal of the denial of alimony, alimony processed for the abolition of the rejection of the plaintiff’s demand is asked to decide.
The court decided to partially accept the case, the cancellation of the monthly poverty support of us $ 300.00, which was decided in favor of the defendant with the decision no., as of 01/09/2014, the rejection of the plaintiff’s requests to remove the alimony that had been committed and requested by enforcement proceedings, was appealed by the defendant’s attorney during the term of the sentence.
The case relates to the request for the abolition of poverty support.
176/3 of TMK.in accordance with the article; financial compensation or alimony decided to be paid in the form of irat is removed by itself in the event of the creditor remarrying or the death of one of the parties; it is removed by court decision if the creditor lives as if he was actually married without marriage, his poverty disappears or lives without dignity.
In accordance with the above provision of the law, the plaintiff requests the abolition of alimony on the claim that the defendant’s poverty is zail. In this case, it is necessary to first focus on the concept of poverty.
07.10.1998 date of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Law and 1998/2–656–688 as agreed in the numbered decision, it is necessary to consider those who do not have income to meet the necessary and necessary expenses to improve the material existence of the individual, such as eating, dressing, housing, health, transportation, culture (education), poor.
It should be immediately noted that in the established decisions of the General Assembly of law, “having income at the minimum wage level” is not considered a phenomenon that makes it impossible to link poverty alimony, and having income above the minimum wage is not considered a phenomenon that makes it impossible to link poverty alimony. (…07.10.1998 day, 1998/2-656 E, 1998/688 K. 26.12.2001 day 2001/2–1158–1185 numbered and 01.05.2002 days 2002/2–397–339 numbered decisions). In this case, it should only be considered as a factor in determining the amount of alimony.
According to the social and economic situation studies of the parties, it was understood that the plaintiff did not work, remarried and lived on a rent of $ 500; the defendant started working as a worker since September 2014 after the lawsuit was filed, received a monthly salary of $ 1100, according to his record, received a monthly salary of $ 2300 since 2015.
In our concrete case, the work that the defendant begins to work after the date of filing the case is a job that can be terminated at any time and is not a fixed and secure job. Working in temporary jobs does not require the abolition of poverty support. Since it is not possible for the defendant to make a living with the alimony he receives in today’s economic conditions, it is necessary for him to enter and work.
For this reason, the decision to accept the case in full, without regard to the fact that the minimum wage will not eliminate poverty, the demand for removal also includes the demand for reduction, this will be taken into account as a factor in reducing the amount of alimony, was not considered correct, it required a violation.
4 of the TMK, taking into account the social and economic decency of the parties and the balance between the parties while alimony is appreciated.in accordance with the principle of fairness emphasized in the article, it should be decided to reduce alimony by an appropriate amount.
Conclusion: without regard to the principles described above, the provision in writing is not accurate, and since appeals are in place for these reasons, the provision is HUMK with acceptance.nun 428.in accordance with article 1086 HUMK with the provisional Article 3 attribution of HMK 6100 to the deterioration of the benefit of the defendant.nun 440.in accordance with the article, the decision was unanimously decided on 18.01.2017, with the path of Correction closed.