14 Mar Charity Alimony Increase Case
T.C. SUPREME
3.Legal Department
Basis: 2016/5899
Verdict: 2016/10153
Decision Date: 27.06.2016
A CASE FOR INCREASING CHILD SUPPORT-THE FACT THAT THE OUT-OF-COURT FATHER COVERS THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPENSES, AS WELL AS PAYS CHILD SUPPORT FOR OTHER COMMON CHILDREN WHOSE CUSTODY IS IN THE DEFENDANT – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
Abstract: the court; the economic and social situation of the parties, the nature of alimony, the income status of the defendant, the needs of the plaintiff, the fact that the out-of-court Father covers the expenses of the plaintiff, as well as the fact that he pays alimony for the other common child Ece, whose custody is in the defendant, the purchasing power of money, the economic conditions of the day, TMK. taking into account the principle of fairness set out in Article nun, an appropriate alimony should be ruled for the benefit of the plaintiff. The court was mistaken in the evaluation of the evidence, and the creation of the verdict was not considered correct, and required distortion.
(4721 P. K. m. 4, 364, 365)
Case: as a result of the court’s trial of the case for increasing the alimony of assistance between the parties, the provision for dismissal of the case was appealed by the attorney of the plaintiff within the time limit; after the decision was made to accept the appeal, the papers in the file were read and considered necessary:
Attorney of the plaintiff, with a petition of claim; the plaintiff is a student, the defendant mother who is a teacher is not supported, the plaintiff’s father who covers the expenses of the elderly mother and her wife, who is a housewife, is also obliged to depend on; 900.00 per month.- TL requested and sued for payment of alimony.
The defendant’s attorney, with a response petition, asked for the dismissal of the case.
The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s father covered the costs, the plaintiff could work, the defendant assumed the expenses of the other child; the provision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
TMC.of 364/1.”everyone is obliged to give alimony to his brothers and sisters, who will fall into poverty if they do not help.”
TMC.article 365/2 of the regulation states that “the case consists of a request for assistance necessary for the plaintiff’s livelihood and appropriate to the financial power of the opposite party”.
07.06.1998 date of the General Assembly of law, ….“…food, clothing, housing, health, transportation, culture (education) to improve the material existence of the individual, such as those who do not have the level of income to meet the necessary and necessary expenses should be considered poor…” was emphasized in the numbered declaration.
Charity alimony is a kind of social assistance to save family members from poverty and poverty, and is an assignment mandated by moral rules and traditions. The fact that the person who asks for alimony assistance has fallen into a state of need for assistance with his fault does not relieve the obliged person of his debt. The fact that family ties have been weakened for any reason has also not been regulated as a reason to eliminate the obligation. For these reasons, the legislator did not leave alimony to the conscience of the person and society, and arranged it as a legal assignment.
However, it is essential that the people who will be obliged to give it should not be reduced to a shortage of livelihood. The alimony determined for this is necessary for the plaintiff to make a living, in proportion to the income of the alimony obliged TMK. nun 4.the principle of fairness in its article should also be appreciated.
In a concrete case, it is understood that the plaintiff, his parents divorced on 14/09/2010, the plaintiff stayed with his father, the parents ‘ other common child born 25/10/2005 …custody was given to the mother, the father married on 18/10/2013, he had a child from his new wife on 24/06/2014. From the information in the file, the defendant’s mother was a teacher, 2.380.00.- 1.250.00, where he gets a salary of TL, stays with his daughter.- He paid rent in TL, had a house and a car, the father was a teacher out of court, 2.500.00.- He received a salary of TL, stayed in his own house, remarried; the plaintiff was born 12/09/1994,.. he is understood to have studied in the department and stayed with his father. The father, who is a partner with the defendant, has 350.00 per month for his child.- TL pays subsidiary alimony.
In this case, the court; the economic and social situation of the parties, the nature of alimony, the income status of the defendant, the needs of the plaintiff, the fact that the out-of-court Father covers the expenses of the plaintiff, as well as the fact that he pays alimony for the other common child Ece, whose custody is in the defendant, the purchasing power of money, the economic conditions of the day, TMK. nun 4. taking into account the principle of fairness set out in the article, an appropriate alimony should be ruled for the benefit of the plaintiff.
The court was wrong in the evaluation of the evidence, and the creation of a sentence in writing was not considered correct, it required a violation.
Conclusion: without regard to the principles described above, the provision in writing is not accurate, and since appeals are in place for these reasons, the provision is HUMK with acceptance.nun 428.in accordance with the article, it was decided unanimously on 27.06.2016 to overturn and return the appeal fee received in advance to the appellant upon request.
No Comments