Supreme Court Of The Republic Of Turkey
2. Legal Department
Base Number: 2018/6836
Decision Number: 2019/7645
“Justice Text”
COURT :Family Court
TYPE OF CASE: Divorce
REQUESTING DECISION CORRECTION: Defendant
The date, subject and parties of the above-mentioned provision; Requesting correction of the decision of our Chamber, dated 18.04.2018 and numbered 2016/15634-2018/5203 regarding partial reversal-partial approval, has been requested, the document has been read and the need has been considered;
Although the Civil Procedure Law No. 6100 entered into force on 1.10.2011, in the subparagraph (1) of the temporary article 3 added to this Law by the Law No. 6217, the decisions taken before the start of office of the Regional Courts of Justice, until the finalization of the Law No. 1086 on 26.09.2014. Since it was decided that the provisions of Articles 427 to 454 before the amendment made by the Law No. 5236 dated No. 5236 will continue to be applied, the request for revision of the decision had to be examined.
1-As a result of the divorce case filed by the plaintiff woman in the court; With the acceptance of the case, it was decided that the parties divorce, alimony in favor of the plaintiff woman, and the rejection of the compensation demands of the parties. It was decided to overturn the verdict on the grounds that she lost her right to prosecute and present evidence, that it was not right to blame the plaintiff woman, in this case, the defendant man was fully faulty, and that material and moral compensation should be awarded in favor of the plaintiff woman.
In the re-examination of the file; The defendant man was notified of the lawsuit petition on 06.01.2015, the defendant’s attorney submitted his power of attorney to the file with his petition dated 16.01.2015 and requested an extension of the response time, and the court gave an additional 2 weeks to submit the reply petition to the defendant. It is understood that he submitted his reply petition in time in 2015. Accordingly, the defendant man also has the right to present facts and present evidence, and there is no irregularity in accepting that the parties are equally at fault according to the events accepted by the court and in the rejection of the claimant woman’s compensation claims. However, since this issue was overlooked at the first examination and it was decided to quash the verdict, the defendant man’s request for rectification was accepted, and the annulment of our Chamber’s decision dated 18.04.2018, with the decision no. It was necessary to abolish the 2nd and 3rd clauses regarding the necessity of a judgment, the court decision should be approved in terms of determining fault with the reason indicated and the rejection of the claimant woman’s compensation claims.
2-The plaintiff woman declared that she was working in the bank in the petition of the lawsuit, and that she quit the job she was working in in the petition for reply. In the notification sent from the bank in which the plaintiff woman works, it was stated that the plaintiff woman quit her job on 19.11.2014, and the witnesses heard also stated that she resigned, thinking that the plaintiff woman’s employment contract would be terminated. Poverty alimony cannot be ruled for the benefit of a woman who leaves her job voluntarily. In that case, the appraisal of alimony for the benefit of the plaintiff woman was not correct. However, since this issue was overlooked during the first examination, the defendant man’s request for correction of the decision on alimony was accepted and our Chamber’s decision of partial approval for alimony, dated 18.04.2018, with the basis of 2016/15634 and with the decision numbered 2018/5203, was abolished. It was necessary to decide to cancel it in terms of alimony.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons given in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs above, the defendant man’s request for rectification is in accordance with Article 440-442 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Our Chamber’s decision dated 18.04.2018, dated 18.04.2018, with the decision numbered 2016/15634 and 2018/5203 was abolished in terms of the affidavit for the alimony ruled in favor of the plaintiff woman, and the judgment was overturned in terms of alimony for the reason explained above, Our Chamber’s 18.04. Removal of the decision of the decision dated 2018, basis 2016/15634 and decision numbered 2018/5203 of partial approval-partial reversal of fault determination and reversal in terms of the rejected compensation claims of the plaintiff woman, APPROVAL of the judgment in terms of the fault determination and the rejected compensation claims of the plaintiff woman, to the depositor of the decision correction fee upon request. It was unanimously decided to return it. 24.06.2019 (Mon.)
