T.O
SUPREME
2. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL NO: 2016/16661
DECISION NO: 2018/5566
DECISION DATE: 25.04.2018
Court: Family Court
Type of case : divorce-abolition of injunction alimony

> > THE REMOVAL OF THE MEASURE ALIMONY IS NOT AN OCT OF THE DIVORCE AND IS SUBJECT TO RELATIVE FEES. JOINT OPERATIONS CAN NOT BE DONE WITHOUT COMPLETING THE RELATIVE MORTAR.

Summary: the request for the removal of the injunction alimony of the plaintiff man is not in the nature of the Oct of the divorce and is subject to relative expense. Due to this request, relative fees were not taken during the opening of the case and this deficiency was not fixed during the trial. Subsequent operations cannot be done without the relative mortar being completed. The court shall grant the claimant man a period of time to replenish the relative mortar (law on fees m. 30-32) if the mortar deficiency is eliminated, the basis of this demand will be examined and a positive or negative decision will be made according to the result, if the mortar is not replenished 30 of the law on fees. while action should be taken in accordance with the article, it was not considered right to establish a written provision without taking into consideration the stated issues.

At the end of the judgment of the case between the parties given by the Local Court, the sentence shown above the date and number of the plaintiff male appealed by, the document was read and discussed and considered as necessary:

1-Court; this witness statement summary, statements that do not specify time and place has not enough quality to decide whether the plaintiff presented by the parties, held in solution in a sound recording and Electronic Media, Photography, Film, Video, or audio, such as recording data and other information carriers, however, if they are supported by other evidence as evidence, the provision can prevail, although it was decided to dismiss the plaintiff’s case on the grounds that it could not be concluded that there were no serious reasons and evidence suitable for the acceptance of an intransigence which would shake the common life between the parties apart from electronic data and would not allow the continuation of the Union; it was understood from the trial and the evidence collected that In this case, the plaintiff male is right to sue. The dismissal of the case without regard to this matter was not correct and required the annulment.

2-the plaintiff male has requested the removal of the injunction alimony in the petition. The application fee received during the opening of the lawsuit covers all the requests in the petition. The plaintiff’s request to remove the injunction alimony is an Oct of the divorce
it is not subject to relative charges. Due to this request, relative fees were not taken during the opening of the case and this deficiency was not fixed during the trial. Subsequent operations cannot be done without the relative mortar being completed. By the court, the relative fee to the plaintiff male
giving time for replenishment (Fees Act m. 30-32) if the mortar deficiency is eliminated, the basis of this demand will be examined and a positive or negative decision will be made according to the result, if the mortar is not replenished 30 of the law on fees. while action should be taken in accordance with the article, it was not considered right to establish a written provision without taking into consideration the stated issues.

Result: 1 Above The appealed provision. and 2. it was decided unanimously that the way to correct the decision was clear within 15 days of the notification of this decision. 25.04.2018