27 Aug MUTUAL DIVORCE SUPREME COURT DECISION
2. Law Department 2021/3136 B , 2021/3975 D.
“Case Law Text”
Court: Ankara District Court 28. Legal Department
Case type: mutual divorce
At the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, given by the local court, Dec.
and the provision shown in the number of the plaintiff-the counter-defendant of the man’s case through participation by the woman
in terms of acceptance, determination of defects, amount of compensation and amount of alimony; defendant – counter-plaintiff
acceptance of the woman’s case and fer by the man, determination of the defect and his own claim for compensation
appeal in terms of rejection, the document was read and discussed and considered:
1-the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, and the reasons in accordance with the law, and in particular the evidence
if there is no wrongdoing in his judgment, the defendant-the counter-plaintiff-the entire man, the plaintiff-the Counter-Defendant
the woman’s appeal, which falls outside the scope of the following bent, is unwarranted.
2-the social and economic situation of the parties, the nature of alimony, the economic situation of the day
according to the circumstances, the Joint child born in 2015 … is a small amount of alimony that is appreciated for the benefit of the child.
4 Of The Turkish Civil Code By The Court. considering the principle of fairness in the article
the appropriate amount of alimony must be ruled. Establishing a provision in writing without taking into account this aspect
it’s against the law and procedure.
3-the social and economic situation of the parties, the nature of alimony, the economic situation of the day
according to its conditions, poverty alimony, which is appreciated for the benefit of the plaintiff-Counter-Defendant woman, is small. Court
4 Of The Turkish Civil Code. a more appropriate amount, taking into account the principle of fairness in the article
alimony must be ruled. Establishment of a provision in writing without regard to this aspect of the procedure and law
it’s contrary.
Conclusion: 2 above the appellant provision. violation of the provision for the reason shown in the bent
above the sections of the subject of Appeal that fall outside the scope of l. confirmation of the reason shown in the bent,
from Mehmet the approval fee written below, which was not initially credited, and the appeal fee
the appeal is to be returned to Nigar on request.
it was unanimously decided that he should be sent to the court of session. 26.05.2021 (Wed.)
No Comments