Economic Violence Court Of Cassation Decision
T.C.
JUDGMENT
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW
E. 2008/2-695
K. 2008/710
T. 26.11.2008
– DESTRUCTION OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE MARRIAGE UNION (Plaintiff’s Defendant’s
That he caused her financial difficulties and subjected her to economic violence
Allegation – Decision on Divorce )
– DIVORCE (The Parties Have Been Married for 34 Years/Plaintiff’s Defendant
Allegation of Financial Distress and Economic Violence –
Decision on Divorce )
– ECONOMIC VIOLENCE (The Fundamental Shattering of the Marriage Union/Plaintiff
Allegation that the Defendant caused her financial hardship – Divorce
Decision to be rendered )
4721/m.166
SUMMARY :
In the divorce case; the plaintiff’s attorney stated that the defendant has a quarrelsome and incompatible structure
that the plaintiff received his salary while he was working and his pension after he retired. he took it away from him, gave him a very small amount of money and asked him to live on it. that they were separated from each other a long time ago, like two strangers in separate rooms. and that they started to live together, and that the parties were divorced, and that the divorce was granted in favour of the plaintiff, and demanded and sued for a judgement for non-pecuniary damages. The court stated that “long years of having to put up with his wife’s over-calculating and stingy frugality the remaining women are expected to live freely and comfortably in the economic and social spheres and the lawsuit she filed to get rid of violence should be accepted” The previous decision was resisted on the grounds. The decision of resisting is appropriate.
CASE :
The case of “divorce, pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation” between the parties
at the end of the judgement; A… … Family Court decided that the divorce case acceptance, partial acceptance of the claim for pecuniary compensation, partial acceptance of the claim for non-pecuniary compensation the decision dated 23.03.2007 and numbered 2006/318 E., 2007/329 K. Upon the request for review by the defendant’s attorney, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation With the judgement dated 15.04.2008 and numbered 2007/12410 E., 2008/5373 K; ( … After the events mentioned in the plaintiff witness statements, the marriage union continued and the events transferred from the plaintiff woman cannot be taken as a basis for divorce.
Pursuant to Article 166/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code; Divorce can be granted in order to ensure that the marital union is so unlikely that the spouses cannot be expected to maintain a common life the foundation of the judgement has been shaken from its foundations. However, the witnesses of the plaintiff
Some of his words are statements that are not suitable for accepting the situation of shaken from its foundation in Article 166/1 of the Turkish Civil Code, and some of them consist of explanations whose reason and motive are not explained and are far from being convincing. In this respect, while the case should be dismissed, it is contrary to the procedure and the law to decide for divorce with insufficient justification by making a mistake in the appreciation of the evidence…),
The case was reversed on the grounds of reversal and the file was returned to its place, and at the end of the retrial; the court resisted the previous decision.
The decision to resist was examined by the General Assembly of Civil Chambers and the appeal was filed in due time After it was understood and the papers in the file were read, the necessity was discussed:
DECISION :
The lawsuit is related to the request for divorce, pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the parties were married in 1972 and the defendant was quarrelsome and incompatible. structure, that the plaintiff received his salary while he was working and his pension after he retired. he took away his pension, gave him a very small amount of money and asked him to live on it, that the parties were separated from each other a long time ago, separated like two strangers. claiming that they started to live in the rooms, the parties were divorced, the plaintiff YTL 10,000 pecuniary compensation and YTL 5,000 non-pecuniary compensation in favour of demanded and sued.
Defendant’s attorney stated that during the 34 years of marriage of the parties, the defendant did not make any that he had no bad behaviour, that the plaintiff’s allegations were unfounded, that he was not responsible for the maintenance of the house that all kinds of needs for the last three and a half years have been realised through joint decisions the decision to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff received his own salary the divorce case to be granted.
The court accepted the divorce case, partially accepted the financial compensation case the Special Chamber’s decision on the acceptance and dismissal of the claim for non-pecuniary damages was reversed for the above-mentioned reason, and the court stated that “for many years the woman, who has to rely on her frugality to the extent of stinginess to live freely and comfortably in the social sphere and to be free from economic violence the case should be decided to be accepted”, the previous decision was resisted.
Based on the mutual claims and defences of the parties, the minutes and evidence in the file, the court the reasons explained in the decision and especially in the evaluation of the evidence Since there is no inaccuracy, the decision to resist is appropriate.
However, the other grounds of appeal of the defendant’s attorney were not examined by the special chamber
Therefore, the file should be sent to the Special Chamber.
CONCLUSION :
For the reasons explained above, since the resistance is found appropriate, the file should be sent to the
to the 2nd Civil Chamber for the examination of the appeal objections of the defendant’s attorney
It was decided by majority of votes in the second meeting on 26.11.2008.
VOTE AGAINST :
The parties were married on 28.08.1972. The divorce case was filed by the plaintiff It was opened on 03.04.2006. That is 34 years later.
The witnesses of the plaintiff heard in the file stated that the plaintiff worked together before he retired colleagues. Only one of them is the plaintiff’s brother. They were colleagues of the plaintiff witnesses testified that the defendant did not give the plaintiff pocket money or gave little, that the plaintiff that he could not even order tea for his friends, that the plaintiff could not spend money as he wished and the witness, who is the brother of the plaintiff, stated that the parties were constantly arguing
that the defendant intervened because the child ate a bowl of yoghurt, this 7 years ago, the defendant told the plaintiff that I earn more salary than you. They explained that he said that he would contribute to the budget as much as your salary. The plaintiff retired in 1995. Witnesses other than his brother are his colleagues.
They are not in family contact. And they convey what they heard from the plaintiff. New They have not provided any specific facts. Since 1995, the parties have spent 11 years They had lived together longer and had forgiven each other on previous occasions.
The witness, who is the brother of the plaintiff, testified that the plaintiff fed the child a bowl of yoghurt. that the parties had quarrelled because of the child. The civil registry records show that the parties had one child is understood to be a child. This child was born in 1974. At the time the case was filed, 32 he’s about 30 years old. Since his mother fed him yoghurt when he was a child, if he was fed yoghurt at the age of 2, he would be 30 years old. a year has passed.
The witness who testified that the defendant would put an equal amount of money into the budget said that the defendant it does not explain whether it has implemented it. The separation of the chambers was requested by the respondent that the defendant was at fault. In other words, he did not attribute any fault to the defendant.
The issue that all the witnesses want to mention is the behaviour of the defendant to the extent of stinginess. According to them, the defendant is so stingy that he does not even give enough money to buy tea for his wife. The same stingy defendant bought an apartment in Ankara and registered ½ share in the title deed in the name of his wife. The defendant is so stingy that he registered ½ share of the summer flat and the car in the name of his wife, as it is understood from the witness statements.
Both the plaintiff and the defendant are civil servants. With the savings they made, they bought the flats and the automobile described above. They live jointly in the house in Ankara, they go to they go and stay together, they drive the car together. The plaintiff once spent years the defendant was travelling to the hospital due to blood pressure and kidney disease when the defendant’s car and the plaintiff had to go to the hospital by minibus, of course, his wife
it would be better if he took it to the hospital himself witness why he didn’t or couldn’t take it he won’t explain. He says 3-4 years have passed since this incident. He does not say anything new. Two small retired civil servants bought a house, a summer house with the savings they made during their working life. and they own a car.
They live in their own house in Ankara. If they had not bought this house with their savings if they were. They would have to live in a minimum rent of 500 YTL per month. So the pensioner half of their salary for rent. With the rest of the money they could barely make ends meet. Frugal and consider it a reason for divorce? Of course not.
The witnesses do not present a new case, and the old case which is accepted as a reason for incompatibility is not a reason for divorce. They referred to events that could not have been possible. The Special Chamber’s well-established According to the jurisprudence, the parties have forgiven each other in past cases. Because for many years again they have lived together.
In order for a divorce to be granted, it is necessary for the marriage union to maintain a common life must be shaken to such an extent that it cannot be expected from them ( TMK. 166/1.art.). For the reasons mentioned above, the marriage union has not been shaken from its foundations, and even not shaken.
For the reasons explained above and in consideration of the established decisions of the Special Chamber I cannot agree with the opinion of the majority in favour of divorce.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.