Menu
En iyi Manavgat Avukatı
  • Anasayfa
  • Biz
  • İletişim
  • Blog
Close Menu
31/12/2022

Alimony, Removal of Precautionary Alimony Relative Fee Obligation Supreme Court Decision

Rabia Ekşi Uncategorized @tr alanya, antalya, law, lawyer, mahmutlar

T.C
SUPREME
2. law office
MAIN NUMBER:2016/16661
DECISION NO:2018/5566
DECISION DATE: 25.04.2018
COURT : Family Court
TYPE OF CASE : Divorce- Removal of Precautionary Alimony

>>THE REMOVAL OF THE PRECAUTIONARY ALIMONY IS NOT AN October OF THE DIVORCE AND IS SUBJECT TO A RELATIVE FEE. CORRESPONDING OPERATIONS CANNOT BE PERFORMED WITHOUT HAVING THE RELATIVE FEE COMPLETED.

SUMMARY: The claimant man’s request for the removal of the precautionary alimony is not an October of the divorce and is subject to a relative fee. Due to this request, no relative fee was charged during the opening of the case, and this deficiency was not corrected during the trial. Subsequent operations cannot be performed without completing the relative fee. The court granted the plaintiff male a period of time for the replenishment of the relative fee (Law on Fees m. 30-32) if the shortage of fees is eliminated, the merits of this request should be examined and a positive or negative decision should be made according to the result to be obtained, and if the fee is not replenished, Article 30 of the Law on Fees. while it is necessary to take action in accordance with the article, it is not considered correct to establish a written judgment without taking into account the specified issues.

At the end of the trial between the parties, the verdict given by the local court, the date and number of which are shown above, was appealed by the plaintiff male, the documents were read and Decisively discussed and considered:

1-By the Court; abstract statement of this witness, are statements that do not specify the time and place has not enough quality to decide whether the plaintiff presented by the parties held in solution in a sound recording and Electronic Media, Photography, Film, Video, or audio recording data and other information, such as carriers, however, if they are supported by other evidence, as evidence that the provision can prevail, electronic data up to degree and shake the foundations of the common life between parties outside the union, allowing for the continuation of the adoption of which will not leave a difficult conducive to serious reasons and evidence not being able to identify the plaintiff’s case were dismissed on the grounds that conclusion cannot be reached; and the trial of the evidence; female behavior were understood to be unnerving. In this case, the plaintiff male is right to file a lawsuit. The rejection of the case without taking into account this issue was not correct and required an annulment.

2-The plaintiff male; has requested the removal of the precautionary alimony in the lawsuit petition. The application fee received during the opening of the lawsuit covers all the requests in the lawsuit petition. The claimant man’s request for the removal of precautionary alimony is an October of the divorce
if not, it is subject to relative expenditure. Due to this request, no relative fee was charged during the opening of the case, and this deficiency was not corrected during the trial. Subsequent operations cannot be performed without completing the relative fee. According to the court, the relative fee to the plaintiff male
giving time for replenishment (Law on Fees m. 30-32) if the shortage of fees is eliminated, the merits of this request should be examined and a positive or negative decision should be made according to the result to be obtained, and if the fee is not replenished, Article 30 of the Law on Fees. while it is necessary to take action in accordance with the article, it is not considered correct to establish a written judgment without taking into account the specified issues.

CONCLUSION: The above of the appealed judgment is 1. and 2. it was unanimously decided to overturn it for the reasons indicated in the paragraphs, to return the appeal advance fee to the depositor upon request, so that the way to correct the decision is open within 15 days from the notification of this decision. 25.04.2018

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.

Application Period Submission of the Attitude Petition During the Application Period, Evasion of the Appeal Period – Decision of the Court of Cassation Poverty Alimony Shall Not Be Imposed On a Woman Who Works And Has a Steady Income Supreme Court Decision

Related Posts

Uncategorized @tr

TBB BAŞKANI SAĞKAN 5 NİSAN AVUKATLAR GÜNÜNDE KONUŞMA YAPTI

Avukatlar, Türkiye Barolar Birliği’nin öncülüğünde 5 Nisan Avukatlar Günü’nde Ankara’da ‘Savunmanın Bağımsızlığı ve Hukuka Saygı’ yürüyüşü yaptı. Barolar adına konuşma yapan Türkiye Barolar Birliği Başkanı Av. R. Erinç Sağkan, “Biz bugün hukuk devletini savunmak için, yargı bağımsızlığını savunmak için buradayız. Bu ses susturulamaz” dedi. “İSTANBUL BAROSU, HUKUKA AYKIRI YARGI KARARLARIYLA GÖREVİNDEN UZAKLAŞTIRILMAK İSTENİYOR” Anıtpark’ta bir […]

Uncategorized @tr

Determination and Recommendations regarding the Main Procedural Problems in Terms of Earthquake-Related Civil Cases

“It is Not Possible to Get Rid of the Responsibility of Those Responsible by Obscuring the Evidence of the Earthquake, On the Contrary, Their Responsibilities Increase” Prof. Dr. Muhammet Özekes (12.02.2023) If the CCP and procedural rules can be applied consciously, correctly and quickly, the judiciary can get out of this earthquake without being in […]

Uncategorized @tr

The Decision of the Council of State that the Consumer Bank Cannot Receive Account Operating Fees

COUNCIL OF STATE 15. apartment Basis: 2014/9570 Verdict: 2018/1194 Plaintiff : Consumer Problems Association Acting Director : Av… Respondent : Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency Acting Director : Av… Summary of the Case: Article 10 of the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles regarding Fees to be Collected from Financial Consumers, which entered into force […]

Uncategorized @tr

Negative Detection Case Based on the Guarantee Bond Claim, Exchange Monitoring Supreme Court Decision

T.C. SUPREME 19. law office MAIN NUMBER: 2016/3357 DECISION NO: 2016/13899 DECISION DATE: 24.10.2016 >> FOREIGN EXCHANGE MONITORING, NEGATIVE DETECTION CASE BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT THE BILL IS A SECURITY BILL, BURDEN OF PROOF AND STATE OF EVIDENCE 6100/m.222/5 6102/m.64 SUMMARY: The case is related to the request for negative determination. The plaintiff has […]

Uncategorized @tr

Traffic Accident, Wearing a Helmet Should Be Reduced by 20% – Supreme Court Decision

T.C SUPREME 17.law office MAIN NUMBER:2017/5716 DECISION NO:2018/1495 DECISION DATE: 01/03/2018 COURT : Court of First Instance >> SINCE THERE IS A MUTUAL DEFECT DUE TO A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, NOT WEARING A HELMET, IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO MAKE A MUTUAL DEFECT DISCOUNT OF AT LEAST 20% ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED APPLICATIONS. At the end of […]

Back To Top
manavgat avukat

İletişim:

+905425139898

+902425139898

info@antalya.law

Adres

Hacet Mahallesi, Canlılar Sokak,
Avukatlar İş Merkezi, No: 7, Daire: 2-3
Alanya / Antalya

Copyright © 2020 Aşıkoğlu Hukuk ™ Aşıkoğlu Uluslararası Hukuk Bürosu, Her Hakkı Saklıdır

WhatsApp us