A Husband’s Neglect Of Personal Hygiene And Divorce
Republic of Turkey COURT OF CASSATION
2nd Civil Chamber
Case No.: 2012/5303
Decision No.: 2012/24965
Date of Decision: October 17, 2012
SUPREME COURT DECISION
COURT: Izmir 11th Family Court
DATE: December 23, 2011
CASE NO.: Case No. 2010/822, Decision No. 2011/1189
Following the consolidation and trial of the “divorce” cases between the parties, the judgment rendered by the local
court, with the date and number indicated above, was appealed by the plaintiff-defendant (wife) regarding;
the determination of fault, material and moral damages, interim relief, contribution, and alimony for poverty, as well as litigation costs
and attorney’s fees; and by the defendant-plaintiff (husband) regarding the judgment rendered in his own divorce case,
the determination of fault, his own claim for compensation, and the provisional alimony awarded in favor of the wife,
the case was reviewed and deliberated upon after the documents were examined:
1-Based on the documents in the file, the evidence and legal grounds upon which the decision is based, and the fact that there is no error in the assessment of the evidence,
the defendant-plaintiff (husband)’s appeals are found to be unfounded; furthermore,
since the events leading to the divorce do not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff-defendant (wife)’s personal rights,
, the rejection of the woman’s claim for moral damages is correct in this regard;
and since it is understood that alimony for poverty was not awarded in her favor, taking into account her regular and steady income,
the plaintiff-defendant (the woman)’s appeals regarding these matters, as well as those concerning the amounts of
interim and contribution alimony, and her appeals regarding other matters not covered by the following provisions
are deemed groundless.
2-Regarding the plaintiff-defendant (the woman)’s other appeals:
a) The court found the plaintiff-defendant (the woman) to be equally at fault as the defendant-plaintiff (the husband), and
consequently, her claim for material damages was rejected. However, based on the investigation conducted and the evidence gathered,
it is evident that the defendant-plaintiff (husband) failed to fulfill his duties regarding the marital union, maintained a separate budget,
was excessively frugal, and neglected personal hygiene, resulting in a body odor. As a result of the husband’s persistent and ongoing conduct and behavior, the marital
union has been fundamentally shaken, and there is no fault attributable to the wife. Under these circumstances,
the decision to hold the wife equally at fault with the other party and, consequently, to reject her claim for monetary compensation (Turkish Civil Code,
Art. 174/1) is erroneous and warrants reversal.
b) Since the divorce case filed and consolidated by the defendant-plaintiff (husband) was dismissed as unfounded,
it was also deemed incorrect that no attorney’s fees were awarded in favor of the plaintiff-defendant (wife),
who was represented by counsel in the case, due to the dismissal of this case.
CONCLUSION: The appealed judgment is hereby
, the portions of the appeal not covered by the reversal are affirmed for the reason stated in paragraph 1 above,
the advance appeal fee is to be refunded to the payer, and this decision
is rendered unanimously, with the right to seek a correction of the decision remaining open for 15 days from the date of service.
October 17, 2012