T.C. SUPREME

General Assembly Of Law
Basis: 1981/551
Decision: 1981/683
Decision Date: 21.10.1981

DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS – WAIVER OF THE CASE-NO REVIEW OF THE DECISION CORRECTION CAN BE MADE ON THE CASE THAT DISAPPEARED

Summary: According to Ferguson of the plaintiff’s case, the case, which is the first condition of the divorce provision, which has not yet been finalized, has disappeared. In the face of this situation, the defendant’s request to correct the decision cannot be reviewed.

(1086 P. K. m. 95, 237, 427, 440)

Case: at the end of the divorce case between the parties; 8.4.1981 days of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of law on the approval of the decision 3.6.1980 days of the Fourth Court of First Instance of Ankara and 418-351, issued by resisting overturning, and E. 1981/2-2428, K. Examination of the Decree No. 1981/279 through correction of the decision, although it was requested by the defendant within the period, the file was examined, the requirement was discussed:

Decision: the husband of the plaintiff, his wife filed for divorce against the defendant Nilgün due to severe lack of livelihood, the court accepted the case and decided to divorce. This decision was overturned by the Special Branch on the appeal of the defendant, and the Local Court resisted in its previous decision. Although the decision to resist was also appealed from the defendant’s God, the law was upheld by the General Assembly and the defendant requested to correct the decision during his time. Before this request was examined and decided, the plaintiff husband reported that he had waived his case with a petition of 20.10.1981 days, which was signed. According to Ferguson of the plaintiff’s case, the case, which is the first condition of the divorce provision, which has not yet been finalized, has disappeared. In the face of this situation, the defendant’s request to correct the decision cannot be reviewed. On the other hand, as long as the divorce provision stands there, it is also legally impossible for the court to reconsider the case and make a new decision due to the waiver. In this regard, in order for a decision to be made by the Local Court on fergat from the case, the consent decree must be lifted and the decision to resist must be broken. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court’s settled practice is also on this path (11.4.1940 day and the reason for the decision to combine Case Law No. 70 HGK?, 16.11.1966 day and resolution 1438-290; 2.HD.decision of 17.6.1968 day vce 2645-4019)

In that case, according to the above statements, since the plaintiff has reported that he has fergat from his case, the General Assembly of law 8.4.1981 days and 1980/2-2428 basis, decision 1981/279 must be removed and the decision to resist divorce must be reversed.

Conclusion: for the reasons described above, the General Assembly of Law decided unanimously on day 8.4.1981 and 1980/2-2428, on day 21.10.1981 to abolish the Consent Decree No. 1981/279 and to overturn the court’s decision to resist.