14 Apr Bride Wealth Can’t Be Asked Back
T.C. SUPREME
13. Legal Department
Principal No: 2014/19529
Decision No: 2014/20906
Decision Date: 24.06.2014
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Court: Şereflikoçhisar 1. The Court Of First Instance
Date: 29/01/2013
Number: 2011/180-2013/76
At the end of the trial of the receivables case between the parties, for reasons written in the decree
the defendants within the term of the sentence given for the partial acceptance and partial rejection of the case
upon appeal by his lawyer, the case was reviewed and considered.
DECISION
Plaintiff, defendant Y.. A..the other defendant, who is ‘ s daughter, N.. A..’I, Son of M. He. to marry the defendant
the father received £ 6,000,00 in security money, £ 6,000, 00 in gold and £ 3,500,00 in clothing
that he was taken and delivered, defendant N. that he and his son were married, but the defendant, Y.. A..’s official wedding
kiydirmad if his divorced wife alimony when they want a formal wedding girls has been received from the daughter of the defendant and
he said the defendants had wrongfully inflicted £ 15,500. 00 in damages on him.
decision to collect £ 15,500 from defendants and charge court costs to defendants
she demanded and sued him.
The defendants have pleaded guilty.
The court granted the partial acceptance of the case to the plaintiff by taking £ 5,000 from the defendants,
the request for the surplus was refused; the verdict was appealed by the defendants.
In addition to the other demands of the claimant, the other claimant Nurgül, who is the daughter of the defendant Yaşar, and his own son
in order to get married, the defendant claims to have given £ 5.000,00 guarantee money (title money) to Yaşar,
he requested a refund of this price. The court said, ” … of the plaintiff’s son and of the defendants N.. A..’s getting married
in order to live together without formal marriage, the parties began to live together
clothing and trappings to the defendant by the plaintiff as a wedding gift before their lives
it is understood that the jewelry and gold taken as a wedding gift belonged to the woman.
it has been decided to reject the request for their compensation. Although the plaintiff party defendants 6,000
Although he stated that he had given TL security money, there was no written document indicating that he had given £ 6,000 money.
as such, the defendants admitted to having been given £ 5,000 of the money, while the witnesses agreed that £ 5,000 of the money was paid to the plaintiff
a £ 5,000 guarantee to the defendants by the claimant considering that they have declared that they have been given by
it has been accepted that he was paid. From the scope of the file by the plaintiff
it was understood that the money given to the defendants was given as the guarantee money title Money. Witnesses also say 5,000
They stated that the TL was given by the plaintiff to the defendant Yaşar as a guarantee money. Defendants also
They accepted that £ 5,000 of assurance money had been given by the claimant. The person as a rule
freedom of conduct is limited by the law and the general code of ethics. Unlawful freedom of contract
the sanction of being surpassed or affected as BK.nun 19 and 20. shown in articles and such
a donation is deemed null and void. The marriage of one to whom one wishes, provided for by law
it is a requirement of fundamental rights and freedoms within borders. The fact that the girl’s father agreed to marry her
the money received under the title of the guarantee money, the goods or money received under the title, is unlawful within these measures.
since it will fall, the commitments and commitments that provide it must also be considered null and void. Reassurance for these reasons
the decision was made to return the £ 5,000 received as money to the claimant…”
to the rejection of the claimant’s other demands but to the guarantee price for the purpose of securing the said marriage
it was decided to demand acceptance. Common and free wills of the parties to marriage
should be made within the framework of defined principles that has been arranged. Civil Code and other laws
a claim that a price may be requested under the name of the guarantee money (title money) for the purpose of securing the marriage.
there is no regulation. The money paid under this name is contrary to general morality and public order
it is evident that it is. Missing debt in money paid in contravention of general morality and public order
it is qualified and cannot be claimed through litigation. In this case, the court shall, on the grounds stated in the case,
the decision in writing, without regard to this matter, should be completely rejected.
it is against the law and procedure to be given, and it requires corruption.
Conclusion: in advance, for the benefit of the defendants of the decision appealed for the reason described above,
on the day of 24.6.2014, it was unanimously decided to return the fee of 85.40 TL on request.
No Comments