Supreme Court 2. Legal Department 2016/13219, 2016/11931 Decision

“Case Law Text”
Court :Family Court
Case type: 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, by the plaintiff woman, determination of defects, rejection of compensation claims, amount of alimony for poverty, joint children…. and….an appeal for custody of nin was made, the documents were read and discussed and considered as necessary:
1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, and the reasons in accordance with the law, and in particular, there is no error in the evaluation of the evidence, the plaintiff’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraphs are unwarranted.
2-the man from the scope of the defendant’s case file against he did not answer the petition, during the investigation phase, the plaintiff claims that the unity of the woman is fulfilling its role by the court, the events that lead to the divorce of the parties who do not fulfill their responsibilities equally with the acceptance of the case was flawed by the parties, reached the conclusion that divorce resulted in favor of women to alimony, where the defendant was given custody of the man when the woman is understood to have decided to the rejection of the claims.
Extension or modification of claims and defenses’ code of Civil Procedure 141. Article “(1) the parties may freely expand or change their claims or defenses with the express consent of the other party, if they are at the stage of preliminary examination. If one of the parties does not come to the preliminary examination hearing without justification, the incoming party may expand or change its claim or defense without seeking its consent. After the completion of the preliminary examination phase, the claim or defense may not be expanded or changed. (2) the provisions of Reclamation and the explicit consent of the other party are reserved for the expansion and modification of the claim and defense.””
As stated in the aforementioned article of the justification of their mutual petition of the parties at that stage, without any restriction in the general framework of the dispute were allowed to change their claims and defenses ….no doubt, this opportunity is only in question for the answer to the answer and the second response petition. After two petitions, petitions that will be submitted, regardless of what name they are under, must be accepted under the scope of limitation and prohibition. At the preliminary examination stage, it was agreed to expand or change the claims or defenses only if the explicit consent of the other party (or if one of the parties did not come to the preliminary examination hearing without justification). (General Assembly of the Supreme Court of law 20.04.2016 date, 2014/2-695 basic 2016/522 decision no.) in this case; the defendant was duly notified of the petition on 14.07.2014 after the response petition was not given within the period of the defense as the basis of the evidence put forward in the period (HMK m. 129/1-e) since there is no local court, it is necessary to admit that it is not legally possible for the defendant to give time to show evidence.
In this case, taking into account the claims and defenses of the defendant party, which did not report its evidence by not filing a response petition during the period, it was not considered correct to impose defects on the plaintiff woman. 174/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code for the benefit of the plaintiff woman, the defendant male who does not perform his union duties, has a habit of alcohol and gambling, insults his wife and wife’s family in the events that lead to divorce in the face of this situation. article conditions However, the court considered the parties to be equally defective and, depending on the determination of this erroneous defect, the refusal of the plaintiff’s claims for material and moral compensation was not correct, and required the violation.
3-according to the social and economic situation of the parties, the nature of alimony, and the economic conditions of the day, poverty alimony, which is appreciated for the benefit of the plaintiff woman, is small. 4 Of The Turkish Civil Code By The Court. taking into account the principle of fairness in the article, a more appropriate amount of alimony should be ruled. It is against the procedure and the law to establish a provision in writing without regard to this aspect.
Conclusion: 2 above the appellant provision. and 3. for the reasons given in paragraphs corruption, destruction outside the scope of the above subject to appeal of the other parts of 1. it was unanimously decided to approve the reason shown in the bent, to return the advance fee on appeal to the Depositor if requested, and to be open to correction of the decision within 15 days from the notification of this decision.20.06.2016 (Mon.)