Poverty Alimony Cannot Be Ruled In Favour Of A Woman Who Voluntarily Quits Her Job
In poverty alimony, which is one of the economic consequences of divorce related to the spouses, it is a type of alimony requested in favour of the party who will fall into financial poverty as a result of divorce, provided that the fault of the spouses is not severe. However, poverty alimony cannot be awarded in favour of a woman who leaves her job voluntarily although she has a job. You can examine the Sample Court of Cassation Decision.
2nd Civil Chamber
Principal Number: 2018/6836
Decision Number: 2019/7645
“Case Law Text”
COURT :Family Court
TYPE OF CASE : Divorce
REQUESTING CORRECTION OF JUDGEMENT : Defendant
The decision on the partial reversal and partial approval of the judgement, whose date, subject and parties are shown above, was partially reversed and partially approved by our Chamber on 18.04.2018 and the decision numbered 2016/15634-2018/5203, the document was read and the necessity was considered;
Although the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 entered into force on 1.10.2011, in subparagraph (1.) of the provisional Article 3 added to this Law with the Law No. 6217, it is ruled that the provisions of Articles 427 to 454 of the Law No. 1086 before the amendment made by the Law dated 26.09.2014 and numbered 5236 will continue to be applied to the decisions made before the date of commencement of the Regional Courts of Appeal until they are finalised, so it is necessary to examine the request for decision correction.
1-As a result of the divorce lawsuit filed by the plaintiff woman, the court decided to divorce the parties with the acceptance of the case, alimony in favour of the plaintiff woman and the rejection of the compensation claims of the parties, and upon the appeal of the parties against this decision, our Chamber decided on 18.04. 2018 dated 18.04.2018 with the decision numbered 2016/15634 Main and 2018/5203 Decision, it was decided to revoke the judgement on the grounds that the defendant man did not respond to the lawsuit in due time, lost the right to assert facts and present evidence, therefore, it is not correct to impute fault to the plaintiff woman, in this case, the defendant man is fully defective, material and moral damages should be awarded in favour of the plaintiff woman, and the defendant man requested correction of the decision in due time.
In the re-examination of the file; it is understood that the lawsuit petition was notified to the defendant male on 06.01.2015, the defendant’s attorney submitted his power of attorney to the file with his petition dated 16.01.2015 and requested an extension of the reply period, the court granted the defendant party an additional period of 2 weeks to submit the reply petition, whereupon the defendant’s attorney submitted the reply petition on 30.01.2015. Accordingly, the defendant man also has the right to assert facts and present evidence, and there is no irregularity in the court’s acceptance of the equal fault of the parties according to the accepted and realised events and the rejection of the plaintiff woman’s compensation claims.
However, since this issue was overlooked during the first examination and the judgment was decided to be reversed, it was necessary to decide to accept the defendant man’s request for correction of the decision, to remove the 2nd and 3rd subparagraphs of the reversal decision of our Chamber dated 18.04.2018, numbered 2016/15634 main and 2018/5203 decision, regarding the determination of fault and the award of material and moral damages in favour of the plaintiff woman, and to approve the court decision for the determination of fault and the rejection of the plaintiff woman’s compensation claims for the reason shown.
2- The plaintiff woman declared that she was working at the bank in the petition for lawsuit and that she quit the job she was working at in the reply petition. In the notice sent from the bank where the plaintiff woman worked, it was reported that the plaintiff woman quit her job on 19.11.2014, and the witnesses who were heard stated that the plaintiff woman resigned herself, thinking that her employment contract would be terminated. Poverty alimony cannot be awarded in favour of the woman who quit her job voluntarily. Therefore, it was not correct to award poverty alimony in favour of the plaintiff woman.
However, since this issue was overlooked during the first examination, it was necessary to accept the defendant man’s request for correction of the decision regarding the poverty alimony and to remove the partial approval of the decision of our Chamber dated 18.04.2018, 2016/15634 main and 2018/5203 decision numbered poverty alimony, and for the reason explained above, it was necessary to decide to revoke the judgement in terms of poverty alimony.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons stated in subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, it is necessary to accept the defendant man’s request for correction of the decision in accordance with Articles 440-442 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to lift the decision of our Chamber dated 18.04.2018, numbered 2016/15634 main and 2018/5203 decision, in terms of the confirmation decision for the poverty alimony ruled in favour of the plaintiff woman, and to VACATE the judgment in terms of poverty alimony for the reason explained above, for the reason stated in subparagraph 1.
For the reason shown in subparagraph 1, it was unanimously decided that the partial approval-partial reversal of the partial approval-partial reversal decision of our Chamber dated 18.04.2018, numbered 2016/15634 main and 2018/5203 decision, in terms of the determination of fault and the rejected compensation claims of the plaintiff woman be reversed, the judgment be APPROVED in terms of the determination of fault and the rejected compensation claims of the plaintiff woman, and the decision correction fee be returned to the depositor upon request. 24.06.2019 (Mon.)
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.