2. Legal Department
Base Number: 2020/2125
Decision Number: 2020/3438
“Justice Text”
COURT :Family Court
TYPE OF CASE: Mutual Divorce
At the end of the proceedings of the case between the parties, the judgment given by the local court, whose date and number is shown above, was appealed by the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman in terms of determining fault, the document was read and the necessary was discussed:
The plaintiff-counter-defendant man filed a divorce case based on the 166/last article of the Turkish Civil Code on 04.09.2014, and the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman on the date of 21.10.2014, 166/1 of the Turkish Civil Code. filed for divorce on the basis of the While the trial was continuing, the plaintiff-counter-defendant man died on 01.12.2014. 181/2 of the Turkish Civil Code, by the plaintiff-counter-defendant male heirs. The case was continued in terms of determining fault in accordance with the article, and as a result of the trial made by the court, the decision regarding the acceptance of the case and the counterclaim, but that there was no need to decide on this issue since the marriage ended with death, was appealed by the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman.
With the annulment decision of our Chamber dated 28.02.2019 and numbered 2019/927 and decision number 2019/1900, it was decided that in the judgment part of the reasoned decision of the court, there was no room for a decision to be made on this issue since both the divorce cases were accepted and the marriage union ended with death. It was decided to overturn the verdict by stating that the marriage union ended with death, the decision was not made on the subject of divorce cases, and the case was continued in terms of determination of fault by the heirs of the deceased. As a result of the trial made by the court in compliance with the annulment, with the decision dated 12/09/2019, it was decided that there was no need to decide on the request for divorce since the marriage union ended with death, and it was decided that both parties were equally at fault in the events that led to the divorce, and the decision was appealed by the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman. has been done.
Divorce case before the parties, which constitutes the basis for the divorce case filed by the deceased man, based on the 166/final article of the Turkish Civil Code, and which is the basis for the plaintiff-counter-defendant, Bakırköy 7th Family Court’s decision no. 2007/190 – 2008/184, male It is a divorce case based on the legal reason for abandonment, regulated in Article 164 of the Turkish Civil Code, filed by the Turkish Civil Code, and combined with the action for alimony based on Article 197 of the Turkish Civil Code, filed by the woman. It was decided to reject the divorce case and to partially accept the alimony case, which was combined on the grounds that the woman was right to live separately.
It is understood that the deceased man, who is the plaintiff-counter-defendant, wanted the woman to return to the common residence with the warning to return home on 20/12/2005, which was sent to the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman in the divorce file. This situation is in the nature of a statement of will that the spouse’s faulty behavior before the date of the warning request is forgiven, at least tolerated, and therefore willing to live together again. Events that are forgiven or tolerated cannot be grounds for divorce. It is understood that the deceased man, who is the plaintiff-counter-defendant, forgave his wife’s faults before the warning in this way, and that the parties did not come together after the warning date, and the existence of a new event that could cause the divorce caused by the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman could not be proved. In this situation, it was not found correct to make a written decision in the place where it would be decided to determine that the surviving spouse (the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman) did not have a fault that would cause divorce, and it required annulment.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously resolved that the appealed judgment be quashed for the reason indicated above, that the appeal fee be returned to the depositor upon request, within 15 days from the notification of this decision, with the possibility of rectification open. 29.06.2020 (Mon.)
