2nd Civil Chamber 2021/3053 E. , 2021/4436 K.
“Justice Text”
COURT: Bursa 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 given by the legal department of the regional court of appeal, whose date and number is shown above, was appealed by the plaintiff woman, the document was read and the necessary was discussed:
It was decided to reject the divorce case filed by the plaintiff woman, an appeal was filed by the plaintiff woman against the decision, and upon the decision of the district court to reject it on the merits, the plaintiff woman appealed. According to the court, “The parties lived together in Erzincan before the lawsuit, the plaintiff woman left there on the grounds of incompatibility and came to Yalova and filed this divorce case, the parties reconciled during the lawsuit and the plaintiff returned to Erzincan to a joint residence with the defendant, they lived together for a month or two, It is necessary to accept that the mutual faulty behaviors that took place before the lawsuit are forgiven by the parties, at least tolerated, and it is not possible to take them into account in determining the fault. For the acceptance of amnesty or tolerance, it is not necessary for the parties to establish husband-wife relations in the sexual dimension, and it is the plaintiff woman who refrains from this, according to the scope of the file. For this reason, although it was decided to dismiss the case; The fact that the plaintiff woman did not stay in the same room with the man despite her return home shows that this behavior is in the nature of a reconciliation negotiation, and therefore cannot be accepted as an amnesty. Contrary to the reasoning of the court of first instance, the reason why the woman abstained from sexual intercourse necessitated the acceptance that the woman did not forgive the man from the statement “Everything has not improved yet” in the statement of the common children heard as witnesses. In this case, the woman’s return home cannot be considered an amnesty in itself.
From the scope of the whole file, it is understood that the defendant man did not want the woman to meet with her family, and he took the house key and kicked her out of the house. In that case, according to the faulty behavior of the man, the man is completely at fault in the events that cause the divorce. There is no doubt that the continuation of the marriage union has been shaken from its foundation in an unexpected way from the spouses. When the events reflected in the file are evaluated as a whole, there is a conflict between the parties that will shake the basis of the common life and will not allow the continuation of the union. required breaking.
CONCLUSION: The appealed regional court of appeal’s decision was REVOCED, the first-instance court’s decision was OVERFINED for the reason stated above, that there is no room for examination of other appeals for now, the appeal fee is returned to the depositor upon request, the file is sent to the first-instance court, a copy of the decision to the relevant regional courthouse. It was decided unanimously to send him to the court of law. 03.06.2021 (Mon.)