T.C. SUPREME

2.Legal Department
Basis: 2016/13335
Verdict: 2016/12661
Decision Date: 28.06.2016

DIVORCE CASE – THE MONTHLY ALIMONY FOR THE JOINT CHILD ALSO COVERS EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES – IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO ASK THE FATHER FOR EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES BASED ON THE PROTOCOL-THE NEED TO DECIDE TO DISMISS THE CASE

Abstract: for the Joint Child Pearl, the agreed monthly alimony of US $ 1,050 also covers educational expenses, and this provision is part of protocol 5 signed by the parties at the time of the negotiated divorce. he has eliminated his substance. It is no longer possible to ask the defendant father for educational expenses based on the protocol. The opposite idea leads to the father paying educational expenses twice. For this reason, the decision to dismiss the case should have been made, while the decision to accept the case with insufficient grounds required a violation.

(4721 P. K. m. 4, 166)

Case and decision: at the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, the decision given by the Local Court, the date and number shown above, was appealed, the documents were read and discussed and considered as necessary:

Parties 166/3 Of The Turkish Civil Code. according to the article, they divorced by Agreement and the divorce protocol dated 31.01.2012 was approved by the court, the decision was finalized on 24.11.2014. 5 of the divorce protocol finalised by the plaintiff. “the Children of the parties… and … all educational costs in the student process will be borne by their father.”against the defendant in terms of education costs for the 2013-2014 school year, which are not paid in accordance with the provision…. He initiated enforcement proceedings with the main file of the Executive Directorate 2014/9912, and the defendant stopped following the objection of the debtor man. The plaintiff asked for the cancellation of the appeal, the court decided to continue the follow-up with the cancellation of the appeal, as well as accept the plaintiff’s request for compensation for denial of execution, the defendant appealed the decision.

On 25.09.2013, the plaintiff filed the 5th amendment of the protocol. based on the article, he also filed a claim for subsidiary alimony, the case… the Family Court’s 2013/760 basis, 2014/509 decision no.was accepted and ruled for subsidiary alimony of US $ 650 in favor of the Joint child Pearl. The decision was appealed by the plaintiff, Supreme Court 3. 2014/17939 basis of the legal department, 2015/4192 decision no. and 16.03.2015 with the decision of “… 5 of the protocol arranged between the parties in the divorce case.in the article, it is understood that all educational costs will be covered by the defendant’s father during Pearl’s student process. Aslolan is the principle of commitment to the contract. … of 8. it is understood that he is a class student and studied at the kollej, the annual fee of the school is 10,557.00 TL, as well as the cost of the course is 1,800. 00 TL. The social and economic status of the parties, the nature of alimony, the age of the common child, the educational status, the need and the income status of the child support obligation (defendant father) are taken into consideration, the amount of alimony of the subsidiary is small and the Turkish Civil Code 4. since alimony must be appreciated in accordance with the principle of fairness emphasized in the article, the establishment of a provision in written form was considered erroneous, this issue required violation.”on the grounds of corruption, the same court ruled on the 2015/319 basis 2015/456 decision and the declaration dated 07.07.2015 in favor of the child 1,050 TL subsidiary alimony.

In this case, for the Joint Child Pearl, the agreed monthly alimony of US $ 1,050 also covers educational expenses, and this provision is part of protocol 5 signed by the parties at the time of the negotiated divorce. he has eliminated his substance. It is no longer possible to ask the defendant father for educational expenses based on the protocol. The opposite idea leads to the father paying educational expenses twice. For this reason, the decision to dismiss the case should have been made, while the decision to accept the case with insufficient grounds required a violation.

Conclusion: a unanimous decision was made to overturn the Appellate provision for the reason shown above, to return the appellate advance fee to the Depositor upon request, to be clear within 15 days of the notification of this decision.28.06.2016