Economic violence defines the economic freedoms of individuals who are disadvantaged in the social and economic structure and the negative effects and obstacles in the process of formation of this freedom. Being excessively stingy in marriage is considered within the scope of economic violence. As a result of these behaviors that lead to divorce, material and moral compensation should be ruled out. You can review the sample Supreme Court Decision.
Law Office
Part Number: 2018/6942
Decision Number: 2018/13653
“text of jurisprudence”
COURT :Family Court
CASE TYPE : Mutual Divorce-Where Will Receive Trappings
Made between the parties of the case at the end of the code number given by the above and the dates shown the judgment of the Local Court, the plaintiff-the defendant by the woman, the defect to determine the amount of rejected claims in terms of alimony; The defendant-the plaintiff by a male is to determine the defect, rejected claims, alimony, and the woman will take the trappings of the acceptance of the appeal in terms of the length of the case, discussed the need to read the paperwork, it was thought that:
1-According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons appropriate to the law, and in particular, there is no mistake in the discretion of the evidence, the appeals of the defendant-plaintiff man and the plaintiff-defendant woman, which are outside the scope of the following paragraphs, are inappropriate.
2-giving rise to the event of divorce by the court, the parties both cases on the grounds that they are equally culpable with the acceptance of, the parties were to decide to divorce; and the evidence from the trial, the court also accepted by the offending behavior and actual economic excessive violence by acting stingy men in addition to his wife, it is understood. By contrast, the woman loaded as a flaw by the court, “it is finished” shaped the discourse belongs to the brother of the woman, not woman, therefore flaw install as a woman, cannot, again, “I can’t, I won’t don’t say” de facto marriage after continuing for a while, so he is pardoned by the men of the facts, or at least would require the acceptance that as the woman will not be loaded because the flaw is tolerated, nevertheless the woman is in court and the acceptance of the wife, as to the house to do the tasks it is understood that the union had left home reluctantly. While it is necessary to accept that the defendant-plaintiff man is more severely defective than the plaintiff-defendant woman in the events that caused the divorce in the face of this situation, the acceptance that the parties are equally defective in writing with the erroneous defect determination is not correct and required to be overturned.
3-Above 2. as explained in the paragraph, in cases that cause a divorce, the defendant-plaintiff man is more severely defective than the plaintiff-defendant woman, and cases that cause a divorce are also an attack on the personal rights of a woman. The woman will be deprived of the financial support of her spouse as a result of the divorce. 174/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code for the benefit of women. the following conditions have been established. Accordingly, as a result of the erroneous determination of the defect that they are equally defective, while the economic and social situation of the parties, the weight of the defect, the rules of equity should be ruled on the appropriate amount of material and moral compensation for the benefit of women, the rejection of the woman’s material and moral compensation claims was not considered correct on the grounds that the conditions were not formed and required to be overturned.
4-According to the social and economic situation of the parties, the nature of the child support, and the economic conditions of the day, the poverty child support provided for for the benefit of the plaintiff-defendant woman is small. 4 Of the Turkish Civil Code by the Court. taking into account the principle of equity in the article, a more appropriate amount of child support should be decided. It is against the procedure and the law to establish a provision in writing without observing this aspect.
CONCLUSION: The above-mentioned provision of the appeal (2.), (3.) and (4.) for the reasons indicated in the paragraphs, the other parts of the appeal subject to DETERIORATION, which are outside the scope of deterioration, are listed above (1.) for the reason shown in the paragraph, approval fee written below is charged to the appellant Bekir, there is no room to deduct the fee received in advance from the application fee of 143.50 TL, except that the fee is received in advance, the appeal fee is returned to the depositor Arzu on request, it was unanimously decided that within 15 days from the date of notification of this decision, the way to correct the decision will be open.28.11.2018 (Wed.)