25 Jan The Other Spouses To The House As a Result Of The Excessive Borrowing Of The Other Spouse Can Open a Divorce Case?
Under Article 166 of the Turkish Civil Code, under the heading of shaking the unity of marriage, the shake of the marriage union is explained as one of the reasons for general divorce. According to TMK m.166: her If the union of unity is shaken to the extent that they cannot expect them to live a shared life, each of the spouses can file for divorce. TM
In order to open a divorce case because of shaking the foundation of the marriage union; a staggering event or attitude must occur, and this event or attitude should make it impossible for the spouses to continue the marriage unity. As a matter of fact, there are discussions between the spouses in the marriage and some problems occur. But if these discussions and fights for spouses do not make the continuation of marriage impossible, divorce will not be decided for these reasons.
The divorce has to be convinced by the judge that it will be more beneficial for the parties and the society. Taking into account the statements of the judges and witnesses, it will evaluate the concrete incident and only if at least one of the spouses cannot be expected to live in a shared life, they will decide on a divorce.
The shaking of the unity of the marriage union is generally regulated by the law and there are no limited number of reasons that may lead to the fundamental unity of the marital union. What can be included in this coverage is shaped by the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Some of the reasons included in the decisions of the Supreme Court can be given as examples; to slander to his wife, to explain family secrets, to not to meet his wife’s family, to insult the family of the spouse, to say that his wife does not like, to show jealousy excessively, to cause many enforcement proceedings by over-borrowing his wife, to isolate his wife from the social environment, to play horse racing and to endanger the family’s economic situation, constantly taking alcohol, to avoid bathing without justified reason, one of the spouses to take money from the other’s pocket, to prevent the woman from exercising her profession.
The decision of the Supreme Court, which considers the reason of divorce as a result of the excessive indebtedness of the husband, is as follows;
ABSTRACT: It is understood that the defendant husband did not carry out the duties of unity and caused excessive debts and a joint house foreclosure. These events were seen as fixed in the court and the reason for divorce was accepted. These actions of the defendant attack the claimant’s personal rights and personal rights of the defendant to the benefit of the Turkish Civil Code 174/2. According to the realization of the conditions; taking into account the economic and social conditions of the parties and the defect cases for the benefit of the claimant; appropriate amount of moral compensation is required.
CASE: At the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties given to the local court, the aforementioned date and number of cases have been appealed and the documents have been read and considered:
DECISION: 1 – According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based on lawful reasons and, in particular, there is no error in the discretion of the evidence, the entire appeal of the defendant husband, the applicant woman outside the scope of the subparagraph is irrelevant.
2. It is understood from the investigation and the evidence gathered that the defendant husband did not fulfill the duties of union and caused excessive borrowing and joint house foreclosures. These incidents were seen as fixed in the court and the reason for divorce was accepted. According to the realization of the conditions; taking into account the economic and social conditions of the parties and the defect cases for the benefit of the claimant; While an appropriate amount of compensation is required, it is not correct to decide in writing.
CONCLUSION: The reasoned clause of the above-mentioned clause in the above clause 2, the provision of the clause out of the scope of the other parts of the appeal subject to the above l. for the reason shown in the article, the written down the following fee to the defendant, the advance payment of the fine and 103.50 TL. the appeal fee is taken in advance to receive the other mortgage, the appeal fee to the plaintiff investor to return the deposit, the decision of the decision within 15 days from the notification of the decision to be open unanimously, on 24.01.2013 was decided.
(T.C. SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT 2 E. 2012/14896 K. 2013/1651 T. 24.1.2013)
No Comments