Woman’s Right To Education
2nd Civil Chamber 2020/4728 E. , 2020/5981 K.
“Case Law Text”
COURT : Gaziantep Regional Court of Justice 2nd Civil Chamber
TYPE OF CASE : Divorce
At the end of the trial of the case between the parties, the judgement given by the Civil Chamber of the Regional Court of Justice, dated and numbered above, was appealed by the plaintiff woman in terms of jewellery receivable, fault determination, rejection of compensation claims and alimony, and the documents were read and discussed:
1- In the examination of the plaintiff woman’s appeal petition for the jewellery receivable;
In the examination of the plaintiff woman’s appeal petition for the claim for jewellery receivable;
Pursuant to subparagraph b of paragraph 1 of Article 362 of the CCP No. 6100, “Decisions regarding cases whose amount or value does not exceed forty thousand Turkish Liras (including this amount)” cannot be appealed. Pursuant to Article 44 of the Law No. 6763 dated 02.12.2016 and additional article 1 added to the 6100 Code of Civil Procedure, it is stipulated that the monetary limits of appeal (Art. 341, 362 of the CCP) shall be increased by the revaluation rate to be determined and announced every year according to the repeated Article 298 of the Tax Procedure Law. As of the date of the decision, this amount was determined as “72.070,00 TL”.
The amount of the jewellery receivable subject to the claim of the plaintiff-woman is 15.000,00 TL, and since the appellate review on the date of the decision does not exceed the finality limit, the decision of the district court of appeal is final according to Article 362/1-a of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. For the reason explained, it is necessary to decide to reject the plaintiff woman’s appeal petition in terms of the claim for jewellery receivable.
2-According to the writings in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the reasons in accordance with the law, and especially since there is no mistake in the appreciation of the evidence, the appellate objections of the plaintiff woman other than the scope of the following subparagraphs are unwarranted.
The court of first instance decided to reject the plaintiff woman’s claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages regulated under Article 174/1-2 of the Civil Code on the grounds that the plaintiff woman and the defendant man did not show the necessary effort to maintain the common life of the marriage union and that the parties were equally at fault.
The plaintiff woman appealed the judgement regarding the jewellery receivable, fault determination, rejection of compensation claims and alimony.
It was decided by the civil chamber of the regional court of justice to reject the woman’s appeal on the merits in accordance with CCP 353/1-b -1.
3- As for the examination of the appeals of the plaintiff woman regarding the determination of fault and the rejection of the compensation claims;
There is no fault proved in the case file arising from the plaintiff woman. In addition to the existing defects of the man, it has been proved by the witness statements within the scope of the file that the man removed his wife from home, did not provide a spiritually independent home, and prevented the woman’s right to education. The defendant man is fully at fault for the breakdown of the marriage union.
4- As explained in the 3rd subparagraph above; it is understood that the plaintiff woman who seeks compensation for the events that caused the marriage union to be shaken is not heavily or equally at fault, and that these events constitute an attack on the personal rights of the woman. As a result of the divorce, this spouse has lost at least the financial support of the other spouse.
In that case, taking into account the social and economic status of the parties, the gravity of the act that is the basis of compensation and the rules of equity (Art. 4 of the Civil Code), it is necessary to decide on material and moral compensation (Art. 174/1-2 of the Civil Code) in favour of the woman, but it was not deemed correct to make a decision in writing as a result of an erroneous fault determination, and it required a reversal.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons shown in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, it was unanimously decided to REVERSE the decision of the regional court of appeal, to REVERSE the decision of the court of first instance, to reject the plaintiff woman’s appeal petition for the claim for jewellery receivable for the reason shown in paragraph (1) above, to APPROVE the decision for the reason shown in paragraph 2 above, to return the pre-appeal fee to the depositor if requested, to send the file to the court of first instance, a copy of the decision to the relevant regional court of appeal law department.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.