T.C.
SUPREME
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW
E. 2012/2-527 K. 2012/767 T. 7.11.2012
Case: at the end of the trial due to “Divorce, Financial, non-pecuniary compensation and nakaka” cases between the parties; Izmir 13. 01.10.2009 day and 2008/726 given by the Family Court regarding the partial acceptance of the alimony case for the acceptance of the divorce case E., 2009/819 K. examination of the numbered decision on request by the defendant – counter-claimant Deputy, Supreme Court 2. 16.05.2011 of the law office and 2010/7774 E., 2011/8480 K. with a numbered warrant;

(…1-the plaintiff-in response to the writings in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the legal reasons and especially in the cases that cause divorce, who is violent to his wife, who is insulting “let’s have the child, I do not want the child that will be yours”, and who is avoiding living together by saying “take away your daughter” to the relatives of his wife, the defendant according to the fact that the divorce decision given due to the acceptance of the husband’s divorce case is correct as a result of the above reasons, the woman’s appeal Appeals in this direction and the appeal appeals that are outside the scope of the following paragraphs were found to be unwarranted.

2-174/1 Of The Turkish Civil Code. Article 186 states that the party whose present or expected interest is in consequence of the divorce may seek an appropriate financial compensation from the party of the defect. the article stipulated that spouses would co-elect the house and join the Union’s expenses with their labour and assets at the rate of their power. It is understood from the evidence gathered that the spouse seeking financial compensation in the events that led to the divorce was not more than the other and equally flawed. As a result of the divorce, this spouse lost at least the other’s financial support. Therefore, the court considers the social and economic situation of the parties and their defects and the principle of fairness ( TMK. Md. 4 BK. md. 42 and 44 ) and the respondent-provision should be given the appropriate amount of financial compensation for the benefit of the plaintiff woman. The fact that this aspect was not taken into account was not seen as correct.

3-Article 174/2 of the Turkish civil code stipulated that the party whose personality rights are attacked because of the events that have led to divorce may seek moral compensation from the person who is defective. From the evidence gathered, it is understood that the respondent and the plaintiff woman seeking compensation in cases that cause the Union of marriage to be shaken from its foundation is not seriously or equally flawed, and that these events constitute an attack on the rights of the person. In this case, the court shall determine the social and economic conditions of the parties, the weight of the Act which is the basis for compensation, and the rules of equity ( TMK. Md. 4 BK. md. 42.43.44.49) in consideration of the defendant-provision for the benefit of the claimant woman, the appropriate amount of non-pecuniary compensation should be ruled. Not considering this direction was not considered correct… ),

The court resisted the previous decision at the end of the re-trial by overturning the case on the grounds that the case had been turned down.

The law was examined by the General Assembly after it was understood that the decision to resist had been appealed during its time and the papers in the file were read.:

Decision: according to the mutual claims and defenses of the parties, the minutes and evidence in the file, the necessary reasons described in the annulment decision, the decision to disrupt the special office adopted by the General Assembly of law should be obeyed, while resisting the previous decision is against procedure and law. Therefore, the decision to resist must be broken.

Conclusion: the decision of the defendant-counter-claimant’s attorney to resist with the acceptance of the appeals Appeals is due to the reasons described in the decision of the special office to overturn the Law No. 6217 no.30. article 429 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086 which is being applied with the attribution of “provisional Article 3” added to the law of Civil Procedure No. 6100. A unanimous decision was made on 07.11.2012, in accordance with article 440/1 of the same law, within 15 days of the notification, the way to correct the decision was clear.