Excessive Stinginess In Marriage Is Attributed As A Defect
Economic violence defines the economic freedom of individuals who are disadvantaged in the social and economic structure and the negative effects and obstacles in the formation process of this freedom. Being excessively stingy in marriage is considered within the scope of economic violence. As a result of these behaviours that cause divorce, material and moral compensation should be awarded. You can examine the Sample Court of Cassation Decision.
Civil Chamber
Principal Number: 2018/6942
Decision Number: 2018/13653
“Case Law Text”
COURT :Family Court
TYPE OF CASE : Mutual Divorce – Gift Receivable
At the end of the trial of the case between the parties, the judgement given by the local court, dated and numbered above, was appealed by the plaintiff-defendant woman for the determination of fault, the rejected compensation claims and the amount of alimony; and by the defendant-plaintiff man for the determination of fault, the rejected compensation claims, the poverty alimony and the acceptance of the woman’s claim for jewellery, the documents were read and discussed:
1-According to the writings in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons in accordance with the law and especially the appreciation of the evidence, all the appellate objections of the defendant-plaintiff man and the plaintiff-defendant woman outside the scope of the following subparagraphs are unwarranted.
2-Although the court decided to divorce the parties with the acceptance of both cases on the grounds that the parties were equally at fault in the events that caused the divorce; from the trial and the evidence gathered, it is understood that, in addition to the defective behaviours accepted and realised by the court, the husband also inflicted economic violence on his wife by being extremely stingy.
On the other hand, it is understood that the statement “this is over”, which is attributed to the woman by the court as a defect, belongs not to the woman but to the woman’s brother, therefore it cannot be attributed to the woman as a defect, again, after the statement “I can’t do it, I can’t do it”, the marriage actually continued for a while, therefore, this fact cannot be attributed to the woman as a defect, since it should be accepted that this fact is forgiven by the man, at least it is met with tolerance, nevertheless, it is understood that the woman, as accepted by the court, did not want her husband to come home and left the house in order not to perform the duties of the union.
In the face of this situation, while it should be accepted that the defendant-plaintiff man is more severely defective than the plaintiff-plaintiff woman in the events that caused the divorce, it is not correct to accept that the parties are equally defective in writing with an erroneous fault determination, and this required a reversal.
3- As explained in the 2nd subparagraph above, the defendant-plaintiff man is more seriously at fault than the plaintiff-defendant woman in the facts that caused the divorce, and the facts that caused the divorce also constitute an attack on the personal rights of the woman. The woman will be deprived of her husband’s financial support as a result of the divorce. The conditions of Article 174/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code have occurred in favour of the woman.
According to this situation, considering the economic and social status of the parties, the severity of the fault and the rules of equity, an appropriate amount of pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation should be awarded for the benefit of the woman, while the rejection of the woman’s claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation on the grounds that the conditions were not met as a result of the erroneous fault determination that they were equally at fault was not deemed correct and required a reversal.
4-The poverty alimony ruled in favour of the plaintiff-defendant woman is low according to the actual social and economic situation of the parties, the nature of the alimony, and the economic conditions of the day. The court should award a more appropriate amount of alimony by taking into account the principle of equity in Article 4 of the Turkish Civil Code. It is contrary to the procedure and the law to make a written judgement without considering this aspect.
CONCLUSION:
The appealed judgement shall be DISMISSED for the reasons shown in subparagraphs (2), (3) and (4) above, and the other parts of the judgement subject to appeal, which are not within the scope of the reversal, shall be APPROVED for the reason shown in subparagraph (1) above, and the approval fee written below shall be charged to the appellant Bekir, and the prepaid fee shall be offset 143. 50 TL appeal application fee has been received in advance, it is not necessary to charge any other fee, the advance appeal fee shall be returned to the depositor Arzu upon request, and it was unanimously decided that the way of correction of the decision shall be open within 15 days from the notification of this decision.28. .11.2018 (Wed.)
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.