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 extremely stingy in marriage is considered within the scope of economic violence. As a result of these behaviors leading to divorce, material and moral compensation should be awarded. You can review the sample Supreme Court Decision.
Law office
Base Number: 2018/6942
Decision Number: 2018/13653
“Justice Text”
COURT :Family Court
TYPE OF CASE: Mutual Divorce-Trinket Claim
The judgment given by the local court at the end of the proceedings of the case between the parties, the date and number of which is shown above, is determined by the plaintiff-defendant woman in terms of the determination of fault, the rejected compensation claims and the amount of alimony; On the other hand, the defendant-plaintiff man appealed in terms of the determination of fault, the rejected compensation claims, the alimony and the acceptance of the woman’s claim for jewelry, and the documents were read and discussed and considered:
1-According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the legal reasons, and in particular that no mistake is seen in the appraisal of the evidence, all appeal objections of the defendant-plaintiff man and the plaintiff-defendant woman, which are outside the scope of the following subparagraphs, are unfounded.
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 leading to the divorce; From the trial and the evidence gathered, it is understood that the man also applied economic violence to his wife by acting extremely stingy, in addition to his faulty behaviors accepted and realized by the court. On the other hand, the statement “this is over” attributed to the woman as a fault by the court, belongs to the woman’s brother, not the woman, and therefore cannot be attributed to the woman as a fault, and after the statement “I can’t do it, it won’t happen”, the marriage actually continued for a while, therefore, it is clear that this case is not the case. It is understood that the woman cannot be blamed as a fault since it would be necessary to accept that she was forgiven by the man, at least that she was tolerated, and nevertheless, as the court accepted, the woman did not want her husband to come to the house and left the house in order not to fulfill her union duties. In the face of this situation, it is necessary to accept that the defendant-plaintiff man is more severely defective than the plaintiff-defendant woman in the events leading to the divorce, but the determination of faulty fault and the acceptance that the parties are equally defective in writing was not correct and necessitated breaking it.
3- As explained in paragraph 2 above, in cases that cause divorce, the defendant-plaintiff man is more severely defective than the plaintiff-defendant woman, and the cases that cause divorce also constitute an attack on the personal rights of the woman. As a result of the divorce, the woman will be deprived of the financial support of her husband. 174/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code for the benefit of women. clause conditions. According to this situation, while the economic and social conditions of the parties, the gravity of the fault, the rules of equity should be awarded in an appropriate amount for the benefit of the woman, the rejection was not considered correct on the grounds that the conditions of the material and moral compensation claims of the woman were not met as a result of the determination of the faulty fault that they were equally defective. .
4- According to the actual social and economic conditions of the parties, the nature of the alimony, and the economic conditions of the day, the amount of alimony awarded for the benefit of the plaintiff-defendant woman is low. Considering the principle of equity in Article 4 of the Turkish Civil Code, a more appropriate amount of alimony should be awarded by the court. It is against the procedure and the law to make a written judgment without observing this aspect.
CONCLUSION: The appealed judgment is OVERFINED for the reasons indicated in the above (2.), (3.) and (4.) sub-paragraphs, and the other parts of the appeal, which are outside the scope of reversal, are APPROVED for the reasons indicated in the above paragraph (1). Bekir, 143.50 TL for the deduction of the fee received in advance, since the appeal fee is paid in advance, there is no need to charge any further fees, and it was unanimously decided that the appeal cash fee be returned to Arzu, who deposited it upon request, within 15 days from the notification of this decision, with the possibility of rectification. .28.11.2018
