Divorce: Telling Your Spouse You Don’t Want Them In Your Personal Life Is A Serious Fault – Supreme Court Decision
T.C.
COURT OF CASSATION
2nd CIVIL CHAMBER
CASE NO: 2016/16526
DECISION NO: 2018/5328
DATE OF DECISION: 19.04.2018
COURT: Family Court
CASE TYPE: Mutual Divorce
>IN A MUTUAL DIVORCE CASE, THE SPOUSE WHO STATES THAT THEY DO NOT WANT THEIR PARTNER IN THEIR PRIVATE LIFE AND DOES NOT WANT TO BE WITH THEM SEXUALLY IS AT GRAVE FAULT
SUMMARY: Although the court ruled that both parties were equally at fault and granted the divorce, the proceedings and evidence gathered show that the plaintiff-defendant husband, in addition to his faultful behavior accepted and established by the court, “stated that he did not want his spouse in his private life and did not want to be with her sexually.” Given this situation, it must be accepted that the defendant-counterclaimant man was at fault in the events leading to the divorce. It was incorrect to accept that both parties were equally at fault without considering this point.
Following the trial between the parties, the judgment issued by the local court, dated and numbered above, was appealed by the plaintiff-counterclaimant man in terms of the fault determination, rejected alimony and compensation claims, and the case accepted by the woman. and the judgment rendered by the local court at the end of the trial between the parties, dated and numbered above, was appealed by the defendant-counterclaimant woman in terms of the determination of fault and the rejected compensation claims, and the documents were read and the necessary deliberations were made:
1- Based on the documents in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons in accordance with the law, and in particular the fact that no error was found in the assessment of the evidence, the appeals of the plaintiff-counter-defendant man and the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman, except for the scope of the following paragraphs, are unfounded.
2- Although the court ruled for divorce, accepting that both parties were equally at fault, the proceedings and the evidence gathered show that the plaintiff-defendant man, in addition to his faultful behavior accepted and established by the court, “said that he did not want his spouse in his private life and did not want to be together sexually.” In light of this situation, it must be accepted that the defendant-counterclaimant man was seriously at fault in the events leading to the divorce. It was incorrect to accept that both parties were equally at fault without considering this point.
3-As explained in paragraph 2 above, the male counter-defendant is seriously at fault in the circumstances leading to the divorce, and this fault also constitutes an attack on the woman’s personal rights. The conditions of TMK m. l74/l-2 have been met in favor of the woman. That being the case, it is not considered correct to consider the parties equally at fault and, based on this erroneous determination of fault, to reject the defendant-counterclaimant woman’s claims for material and moral damages (TMK m. 174/1-2), and it requires reversal.
CONCLUSION: The appealed judgment is REVERSED for the reasons stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, while the other parts of the appeal not covered by the reversal are AFFIRMED for the reason stated in paragraph 1 above. The costs specified below are imposed on …, the advance costs are offset, and the appeal fee of TL 143.50 Since the advance appeal fee has been collected, there is no need to collect any other fees. The advance appeal fee shall be returned to Mürüvet upon request. It was unanimously decided that the right to appeal this decision within 15 days of its notification remains open. 04.19.2018