\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 T.C.
\nSUPREME
\nGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW<\/p>\n
* Shaking from the foundation of the marital union ( the plaintiff is the defendant<\/p>\n
That he caused him financial difficulties and suffered economic violence<\/p>\n
Claim-That Their Divorce Will Be Decided )<\/p>\n
* Divorce ( in which the parties have been married for 34 years\/the plaintiff to the defendant himself<\/p>\n
His claim that he was experiencing financial difficulties and economic violence \u2013<\/p>\n
Their Divorce Will Be Decided )<\/p>\n
* Economic violence ( shaken from the foundation of marital union\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
The Defendant’s Claim That He Caused Him Financial Difficulties \u2013 Their Divorce<\/p>\n
To Be Decided )<\/p>\n
4721 \/ m.166<\/p>\n
Summary: in a divorce case, the plaintiff’s attorney is a belligerent and subsistence structure of the defendant<\/p>\n
that is, the claimant’s salary while working, and his pension after retirement<\/p>\n
he said he took it from him, he wanted him to get along with it by giving him very little money, the parties<\/p>\n
a long time ago, they were separated from each other, in separate rooms like two strange people<\/p>\n
arguing that they had begun to live, the parties ‘ divorces, material in favor of the plaintiff,<\/p>\n
he requested and sued for non-pecuniary compensation. Court ” long<\/p>\n
years have to endure his wife’s frugality in a measure of over-calculating and stingy<\/p>\n
the remaining women live free and comfortable in the economic and social sphere and economic<\/p>\n
he said:\u201dWe need to make a decision to accept the case he has filed to get rid of violence.”<\/p>\n
the grounds were resisted in the previous decision. The decision to resist is in place.<\/p>\n
Lawsuit : from the case of \u201c divorce, material and moral decriminalization \u201d between the parties<\/p>\n
at the end of the trial, a divorce case was filed by the Family Court.<\/p>\n
acceptance, partial acceptance of a case for material compensation, a case for moral compensation<\/p>\n
23.03.2007 day and 2006\/318 B., 2007\/329 B. numbered decisions<\/p>\n
at the request of the defendant’s attorney, the Supreme Court 2.Legal Department<\/p>\n
15.04.2008 day and 2007\/12410 B., 2008\/5373 D. with numbered declaration;<\/p>\n
(…After the events in the plaintiff’s witness statements, the marital union continued<\/p>\n
events transferred from the plaintiff cannot be based on divorce.<\/p>\n
In accordance with article 166\/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code; divorce decision can be made<\/p>\n
for a marriage union, to maintain a common life is not expected from spouses<\/p>\n
it has to be constant that it’s shaken from its foundation. However, the plaintiff’s witnesses heard<\/p>\n
part of his words are based on Article 166\/1 of the Turkish Civil Code<\/p>\n
statements that are not conducive to acceptance of the state of concussion, and some of them are the cause and<\/p>\n
saiki consists of explanations that are not explained and are far from convincing. With this reputation<\/p>\n
the dismissal of the case was due to an error in the discretion of the evidence, with insufficient grounds<\/p>\n
the decision to divorce is against the procedure and the law… ),<\/p>\n
A retrial with a reversal instead of a case broken on the grounds<\/p>\n
in the end, the court resisted the previous decision.<\/p>\n
The law was examined by the General Assembly and appealed during the duration of the decision to resist<\/p>\n
after it was understood and the papers in the file were read, the need was discussed:<\/p>\n
Verdict: the case relates to a request for divorce,material and moral compensation.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff’s attorney said that the parties were married in 1972, and that the defendant was a belligerent and impenetrable<\/p>\n
the structure is that the claimant also retires after retiring his salary while working<\/p>\n
he took away his pension, gave him very little money, and wanted him to get along with it,<\/p>\n
that the parties were separated from each other long ago, separate like two foreign people<\/p>\n
the plaintiff argued that the parties had begun to live in the rooms, and that the parties had divorced.<\/p>\n
decision in favor of 10,000 TL material, 5,000 TL moral compensation discretion<\/p>\n
demand and has prosecuted.<\/p>\n
Defendant’s Attorney, any person who would upset the defendant’s spouse during the parties ‘ 34-year marriage<\/p>\n
that his misbehavior did not exist, that the plaintiff’s claims were unfounded, that he did not live in the House<\/p>\n
the joint decision that there was any need to, for the last three and a half years<\/p>\n
decision to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiff received his own salary<\/p>\n
it was reported in response.<\/p>\n
The court’s acceptance of the divorce case, in part of the financial compensation case<\/p>\n
his decision on his admission and rejection of the case for moral compensation, by the Special Department<\/p>\n
because of the above-mentioned reason, the court said that ” for many years his wife was overly calculating and<\/p>\n
a woman who has to rely on her frugality in the measure of stinginess, economic and<\/p>\n
to live free and comfortable in the social sphere and to get rid of economic violence<\/p>\n
the previous decision was resisted on the grounds that the case\u201d should be decided.”<\/p>\n
Mutual claims and defenses of the parties, minutes and evidence in the file, court<\/p>\n
the necessary reasons described in his decision and, in particular, in the evaluation of the evidence<\/p>\n
according to the absence of a hit, the decision to resist is in place.<\/p>\n
However, other reasons for the appeal of the defendant’s attorney have not been examined by the special department<\/p>\n
because there is, the file must be sent to the private circle.<\/p>\n
Conclusion: because resistance is appropriate for the reasons described above, the file<\/p>\n
2 for the examination of the appeals of the defendant’s attorney.Legal Department<\/p>\n
his sending was decided by a vote at the second meeting on 26.11.2008.<\/p>\n
VOTE AGAINST :<\/p>\n
The parties were married on 28.08.1972. Divorce proceedings, by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
It was opened on 03.04.2006. I mean, 34 years later.<\/p>\n
Plaintiff witnesses heard in the file that the plaintiff worked with before retiring<\/p>\n
they’re colleagues. Only one is the plaintiff’s brother. With colleagues<\/p>\n
witnesses say the defendant did not give or give the plaintiff little pocket money, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
he can’t even order tea to his friends, he can’t spend money the way the plaintiff wants<\/p>\n
the witness, who is the brother of the plaintiff, said the parties were constantly arguing.<\/p>\n
because the boy ate a bowl of yoghurt, the defendant intervened.<\/p>\n
that’s why they argued that 7 years ago, the defendant told the plaintiff that I get paid more than you do.<\/p>\n
They explained that you said You’d contribute to the budget as much as your salary.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff retired in 1995. Witnesses other than his brother are colleagues.<\/p>\n
They don’t see the family. And they convey what they have heard from the plaintiff. New<\/p>\n
they have not revealed a visible event. 11 years since 1995<\/p>\n
they lived together and forgave each other in the events before that.<\/p>\n
The witness, who is the brother of the plaintiff, made the plaintiff feed the child a bowl of yogurt<\/p>\n
he said the parties were arguing. A child of the parties in the population register<\/p>\n
it is understood that it is. This child was born in 1974. 32 at the time the case was filed<\/p>\n
he’s his age. His mother ate yogurt when he was a child, so if he ate it at the age of 2, he would eat it at 30 Dec.<\/p>\n
the year has passed. A witness who states that the defendant will put an equal amount of money into the budget, the defendant<\/p>\n
it does not disclose whether it has implemented it. Separation of rooms from the defendant<\/p>\n
nor does he say it was caused. So he didn’t fault the defendant.<\/p>\n
What all witnesses want to express is that the defendant is stingy<\/p>\n
it’s his attitude. According to them, the defendant is so stingy that he even has enough money to buy his wife Tea<\/p>\n
does not provide. The same stingy defendant bought an apartment in Ankara, \u00bd share on his wife<\/p>\n
he registered it in the deed. The defendant is so stingy that the summer apartment he bought and<\/p>\n
his car was registered in the name of his wife, as can be seen from witness statements<\/p>\n
has maintained.<\/p>\n
Both the plaintiff and the defendant are officers. The savings they make are described above<\/p>\n
they took the car with the apartments. They live together at home in Ankara, in the summer house<\/p>\n
they go and stay together, and they drive the car together. Claimant one time years<\/p>\n
defendant car on way to hospital for blood pressure and kidney ailment<\/p>\n
he didn’t take her with him, the plaintiff had to go to the hospital with dolmus, of course, his wife<\/p>\n
it would be nice if he took her to the hospital himself, what the witness didn’t or couldn’t take her for<\/p>\n
it doesn’t explain it. He says it’s been 3-4 years since this happened. He’s not saying anything new.<\/p>\n
Home, cottage with the savings they made during the period when they worked<\/p>\n
and they owned cars.<\/p>\n
They live in their own homes in Ankara. If you have not bought this house with the savings they have made<\/p>\n
if they were. They would have to sit on a minimum rent of 500 YTL per month. So retired<\/p>\n
they were going to rent half their salary. They’d barely make a living with the remaining money. Frugal<\/p>\n
is it possible to ignore them and consider this the reason for the divorce? Of course it’s not.<\/p>\n
Just as witnesses did not reveal a new incident, they accepted the old one and the reason for lack of livelihood<\/p>\n
they talked about events that could not have happened. Private apartment<\/p>\n
according to case law, the parties have forgiven each other in ancient events. Because for many years again<\/p>\n
they must have lived together.<\/p>\n
In order for a divorce to be decided; the marriage union to maintain a common life<\/p>\n
it must be shaken from its foundation to a degree that is not expected of them (TMK\u2019s<\/p>\n
166\/1. ). For the reasons described, it is not shaken from the foundation of marital unity, even at all<\/p>\n
he’s not shaken.<\/p>\n
For the reasons described above, and the settled decisions of the Special Department, also take into account<\/p>\n
I can’t agree with the majority’s view of divorce.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 T.C. SUPREME GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW 2008\/2-695 2008\/710 26.11.2008 * Shaking from the foundation of the marital union ( the plaintiff is the defendant That he caused him financial difficulties and suffered economic violence Claim-That Their Divorce Will Be Decided ) *…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1,211],"tags":[217,223,220,218],"yoast_head":"\n