A person who has no income and wealth and who goes to compulsory military service cannot be held responsible for alimony. You can review the sample Supreme Court Decision.
Law office
Principal Number: 2016/20858
Decision Number: 2018/8072
“Justice Text”
COURT: Civil (Family) Court of First Instance
TYPE OF CASE: Mutual Divorce
The judgment given by the local court at the end of the proceedings of the case between the parties, the date and number of which is shown above, is made by the plaintiff-counter-defendant man, in terms of the accepted case of the woman, the determination of fault, the rejected compensation claims, alimony and custody, and the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman, determination, his rejected claims for compensation, poverty and the amount of participation alimony were appealed, the documents were read and the necessary was discussed and considered:
1-According to the writings in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, legal reasons, and in particular, no mistake is seen in the evaluation of the evidence, the appeal objections of the parties that fall outside the scope of the following paragraphs are unfounded.
2- Although the court decided to accept both divorce cases by accepting the parties as equally defective in the events leading to the divorce; From the trial and the evidence gathered, the plaintiff-counterdefendant man did not provide independent housing, threatened his wife, inflicted physical violence on his wife, insulted him, did not let his wife meet with his family, remained silent about his family’s intervention in marriage, threatening and insulting his wife; it is understood that the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman insulted her husband, neglected her union duties, and remained silent when her family intervened in the marriage, threatened and insulted her husband. According to this situation, it should be accepted that the plaintiff-counter-defendant man is more seriously flawed than the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman in the events leading to the divorce. In this situation, it was not correct to accept the parties as equally defective and necessitated reversal.
3- In the cases that cause divorce for the reason shown in the 2nd paragraph above, the plaintiff-defendant man is seriously flawed, and these faulty behaviors also constitute an attack on the personality rights of the woman. As a result of the divorce, the woman was deprived of her husband’s financial support. For the benefit of women, the conditions of article 174/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code have been met. In the framework of the social and economic conditions of the parties, the gravity of the faults and the principle of fairness, the decision to reject in written form was not correct and necessitated reversal.
4-It is understood that the plaintiff-counter-defendant man was drafted during the trial. A man who is doing his compulsory military service and has no income or wealth cannot be held responsible for alimony. While the plaintiff-defendant man should not be held responsible for temporary alimony during the military service period (consumption number 5/11 dated 12.12.1966), it was not correct to rule on temporary alimony for the benefit of the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman and common child, including this period.
5- According to the social and economic conditions of the parties, the nature of the alimony, and the economic conditions of the day, the poverty alimony awarded to the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman is high. A more appropriate amount of alimony should be awarded by the court, taking into account the principle of equity in Article 4 of the Turkish Civil Code. It is against the procedure and the law to make a written judgment without observing this aspect.
6- According to the social and economic conditions of the parties, the nature of the alimony, and the economic conditions of the day, the child support that is appreciated for the benefit of the common child is high. Considering the principle of equity in Article 4 of the Turkish Civil Code, the court should decide on a more appropriate alimony. It is against the procedure and the law to make a written judgment without observing this aspect.
CONCLUSION: The appealed judgment is OVERFINED for the reasons set forth in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th paragraphs above, and the other parts of the appeal, which are outside the scope of the reversal, are APPROVED for the reason stated in the 1st paragraph above.
It was unanimously decided that the appeal fee be returned to the depositor upon request, with the possibility of rectification within 15 days following the notification of this decision. 26.06.2018 (Tuesday)