Law office
Base Number: 2020/3411
Decision Number: 2020/3968
“Justice Text”
COURT: Samsun Regional Court of Justice 4th Civil Chamber
TYPE OF CASE: Mutual Divorce
At the end of the proceedings of the case between the parties, the judgment given by the legal department of the regional court of appeal, whose date and number is shown above, was appealed by the plaintiff-counter-defendant man in terms of fault determination, custody, alimony and compensations, the document was read and the necessary was discussed:
1-Because it is not based on the writings in the file, the process and investigation suitable for reversing, the fact that there is no mistake in the discretion of the evidence, and especially the fact that he did not leave money to the house, which was charged to the plaintiff-counter-defendant man by the court as a fault, it is not based on the fact that the man can not be blamed as a fault, but other faulty behaviors accepted and realized by the court. According to the conclusion, since it is understood that the man is still completely at fault in the events leading to the divorce, the appeal objections of the plaintiff-counter-defendant man, which are outside the scope of the subparagraph below, are unfounded.
2- The custody of Ali Kemal, the joint children of the parties, born in 2010, was given to the father, and the custody of Pelin, born in 2013, was given to the mother, and a personal relationship was arranged so that the children would not see each other. The claimant-counter-defendant father’s appeal for custody was rejected by the regional court of appeal. Organizing a personal relationship so that the child whose custody is given to the mother and the child who is given to the father cannot see each other, prevents the development of the sense of brotherhood between the children, and the personal relationship established every year during the semester break is of a nature to cause hesitation in the execution. Since this issue does not require a retrial, this part of the provision had to be corrected and approved (HMK art. 370/2).
CONCLUSION: For the reason given in paragraph (2) above, paragraph 3 of paragraph B has been removed from the judgment clause of the appealed decision and replaced with “The personal relationship between the mother and the child whose custody is given to the father, on Saturday, which coincides with the first and third week of each month, from 09:00 to Sunday. until 17:00 on the first day of religious holidays from 10:00 to 9:00 on the second day, from 09:00 on 1 August to 17:00 on 15 August, every year from Monday to Saturday, the first week of the semester holiday to establish a personal relationship by taking the children from the claimant father’s side until 14:00 on the day of the week and delivering them at the end of the time period”, again by subtracting the words “from 09.00 on Saturday until the end of the second week until 14.00 on Sunday” from paragraph 6 of paragraph B. The words “from 09:00 am on Monday to 11:00 am on Saturday in the second week of the semester break every year” are added to the CORRECTED version of these parts of the provision. It was unanimously decided that the other parts of the appeal be APPROVED for the reason indicated in the paragraph (1) above, that the appeal fee be returned to the depositor upon request, that the file be sent to the court of first instance, and a copy of the decision to the relevant regional court of appeals legal chamber. 21.09.2020
