2nd Civil Chamber 2020/4728 E. , 2020/5981 K.
“Justice Text”
COURT: Gaziantep Regional Court of Justice 2nd Civil Chamber
TYPE OF CASE: Divorce
At the end of the proceedings of the case between the parties, the judgment rendered by the legal chamber of the regional court of appeal, the date and number of which is shown above, was appealed by the plaintiff woman in terms of jewelry receivables, fault determination, rejection of compensation claims and alimony, the documents were read and the necessary was discussed:
1- In the examination of the petition of appeal against the claimant woman’s jewelry;
In the examination of the petition of appeal against the claimant woman’s request for jewelry;
Pursuant to subparagraph b of paragraph 1 of Article 362 of HMK No. 6100, “Decisions regarding cases whose amount or value does not exceed forty thousand Turkish Liras (including this amount)” cannot be appealed. Pursuant to Article 44 of Law No. 6763 dated 02.12.2016 and additional article 1 added to the Law of 6100 Civil Procedure, monetary limits for appeal (HMK art. 341, 362) will be determined and announced every year in accordance with the repeated article 298 of the Tax Procedure Law. It is envisaged that the revaluation rate will be increased. As of the decision date, this amount has been determined as “72.070.00 TL”.
The amount of the jewelry receivable subject to the claimant-woman’s request is 15,000.00 TL, and since the appeal examination does not exceed the finality limit on the date of the decision, the decision of the regional court of appeal is final according to article 362/1-a of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. For the reasons explained, it was necessary to decide to reject the petition of the plaintiff woman in terms of her request for jewelry.
2-According to the writings in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, legal reasons, and in particular, no mistake was observed in the appraisal of the evidence, the appeal objections of the plaintiff woman, which are outside the scope of the following paragraphs, are unfounded.
By the court of first instance, the plaintiff woman and the defendant man did not make the necessary effort to maintain the common life of the marriage union and the parties were equally faulty, the woman’s TMK 174/1-2 art. It was decided to reject the material and moral compensation claims.
The plaintiff woman appealed against judgment, jewelry receivables, determination of fault, rejection of compensation claims and alimony.
The Regional Court of Appeal’s legal department has decided to reject the woman’s appeal application on the merits, pursuant to HMK 353/1-b-1.
3- As for the determination of fault by the plaintiff woman, and the examination of the appeals against the rejection of the compensation claims;
There is no proven defect in the case file arising from the plaintiff woman. In addition to the man’s current faults, it has been proven by the statements of witnesses within the scope of the file that he removed his wife from the house, did not provide an independent house in a moral sense, and was hindered by the woman’s right to education. Defendant man is completely at fault in shaking the foundation of the marriage union.
4-As explained in the 3rd paragraph above; It is understood that the claimant woman who requested compensation in the events that led to the deterioration of the marital union was not seriously or equally guilty, and that these events constituted an attack on the personal rights of women. As a result of the divorce, this spouse has lost at least the financial support of the other. In that case, it is necessary to decide on pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation for the benefit of women (TMK m. 174/1-2), taking into account the social and economic conditions of the parties, the gravity of the act that is the basis for compensation, and the rules of equity (TMK m. 4). It was not considered correct to make a decision in written form and required annulment.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons indicated in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs above, the appealed judgment was REMOVED, the decision of the first-instance court was OVERFINED, and the appeal petition against the claimant’s claim to receive the jewelery was REJECTED for the reason indicated in the paragraph (1) above, the judgment indicated in the 2nd paragraph. It was unanimously decided to APPROVE the reason, to return the appeal fee to the depositor, to send the file to the court of first instance, and to send a copy of the decision to the relevant regional court of appeals legal chamber. 19.11.2020 (Thurs.)