A PARTY THAT ATTRACTS A RETURN WARNING IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE FORGIVEN ITS WIFE’S FAULTS BEFORE THE WARNING

26 Aug A PARTY THAT ATTRACTS A RETURN WARNING IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE FORGIVEN ITS WIFE’S FAULTS BEFORE THE WARNING

2. Legal Department

Base Number: 2020/2125

Decision Number: 2020/3438

“Case Law Text”

Court :Family Court
Case type: mutual divorce

At the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, the provision given by the Local Court, the date and number shown above, was appealed by the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman in terms of determining the defect, the documents were read and discussed decisively.:
Plaintiff – Counter-Defendant male filed for divorce based on Article 166/last of the Turkish Civil Code on 04.09.2014, while defendant-counter-plaintiff female filed for divorce based on Article 166/1 of the Turkish Civil Code on 21.10.2014. she filed for divorce against him based on the clause. While the trial continues, the plaintiff-Counter-Defendant male passed away on 01.12.2014. Plaintiff – Counter-Defendant male heirs … by, 181/2 of the Turkish Civil Code. in accordance with the article, the case was continued in terms of determining the defect, as a result of the court’s decision that there was no room for the acceptance of the case and the counter-case, but since the marriage ended in death, the decision was appealed by the defendant-the counter-plaintiff woman.
28.02.2019 date of our apartment, 2019/927 basis – In accordance with the decision no. 2019001, the court’s reasoned decision has decided that there is no room for both the acceptance of divorce cases and the decision on this issue, since the marriage union ends in death, making the provision contradictory in itself, stating that the marriage union ends in death, it was decided that there was no room for a decision to be made on divorce cases, and that the case was continued by the deceased’s heirs in terms of determining the defect. As a result of the court’s decision to break it, it was decided that since the marriage union ended in death, there was no room for a decision on the divorce request, both parties were equally flawed in the events that led to the divorce, the decision was appealed by the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman.
A divorce case between the parties that was previously seen and is the basis for a divorce case filed by the plaintiff-Counter-Defendant, modest man, based on Article 166/Dec.of the Turkish Civil Code Bakirkoy 7.2007/190 esas-2008 / 184 decision of the Family Court, 164 of the Turkish Civil Code filed by men. it is a divorce case based on the legal reason for abandonment organized in Article 197 of the Turkish Civil Code filed by a woman. item measure based on child support combined with a case, the court held that the trial duly notice of leave as a result of divorce on the grounds that it is not based on the denial of male dropouts, women were justified on the grounds that the separate living partially in support of combined measure decided upon the adoption of the case, judgment final on 15.09.2009 through appellate review.

It is understood that the plaintiff-counter-defendant asked the defendant-Counter-Plaintiff to return to the common residence with a warning to return to the house that he sent to the woman on 20/12/2005 in the main divorce file. This is an explanation of the will that the wife’s imperfect behavior before the date of the request for a warning is forgiven, at least tolerated, and therefore a desire to live together again. Events that are forgiven or tolerated cannot be the cause of divorce. It is understood that the plaintiff-Counter-Defendant decedent man forgives his wife’s defects before the warning, and that the parties did not meet after the date of the warning, as well as that the existence of a new event that could lead to divorce caused by the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman cannot be proven. However, the decision in writing in the place where the surviving spouse (defendant-counter-plaintiff woman) was determined to have no defect that would lead to divorce was not found correct and required to be overturned.
Conclusion: it was unanimously decided that the Appellate provision should be broken for the reason shown above, that the appellate advance fee should be returned to the Depositor upon request, and that the way to correct the decision should be clear within 15 days of the notification of this decision. 29.06.2020 (Mon.)