Is It Necessary to Accept the Case of Both Spouses When It is Understood That the Plaintiff – Counter-Defendant Spouse Is Also Right to File a Lawsuit

T.C. SUPREME

2.law office
Basis: 2016/10179
Verdict: 2018/1176
Decision Date: 25.01.2018

DIVORCE CASE – THERE IS AN INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE EXTENT THAT IT SHAKES THE COMMON LIFE FROM ITS FOUNDATION AND DOES NOT ALLOW THE CONTINUATION OF THE UNION – THE NEED TO Decisively DECIDE ON DIVORCE WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE MAN’S CASE

SUMMARY: There is an incompatibility between the parties to the extent that it Decays the common life from its foundation and does not allow the continuation of the union. In the face of the flow of events, the plaintiff-defendant male is also right to file a lawsuit. According to the fact that it is no longer considered legally possible to force spouses to live together under these conditions, the rejection of the man’s case with insufficient grounds was not found correct where the decision to divorce would be made with the acceptance of the plaintiff-defendant man’s case.

(4721 P. K. m. 166)

The judgment given by the local court at the end of the trial between the parties, the date and number of which are shown above, was rejected by the plaintiff-counter plaintiff male from the point of view of the rejection of the main case, determining the defect, financial compensation, power of attorney fee; the defendant-counter plaintiff female from the point of view of determining the defect and compensation, the documents were read, discussed and considered Decisively:

1- According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the reasons in accordance with the law, and especially the fact that there is no error in the evaluation of the evidence, all the appeals of the defendant-counter plaintiff woman and the plaintiff-counter defendant man, which are outside the scope of the following paragraph, are groundless.

2 – the investigation, the evidence to be shaken from the event that causes a marriage with the foundations of the Union, both parties may be defective common life that cannot be established formats, in addition to the defects identified and determined by the court, the plaintiff-the unity of man against neglected the duties of the defendant, and the defendant did not provide independent housing that plaintiff is severely flawed when compared to the woman against the parties to the marriage in terms of a benefit that is not worth preserving, 166/2 of the Turkish Civil Code. it is understood that the substance conditions are formed. In this case, there is an incompatibility between the parties to such an extent that it Decays the common life from its foundation and does not allow the continuation of the union. In the face of the flow of events, the plaintiff-defendant male is also right to file a lawsuit. According to the fact that it is no longer considered possible by law to force spouses to live together under these conditions, it is possible to divorce with the acceptance of the claimant-defendant man’s case (TMK m. 166/1-2) in the place where the decision will be made, the rejection of the man’s case with insufficient grounds was not found correct.

However, it was decided to accept the divorce case filed by the defendant-counter plaintiff woman, and since the verdict was finalized without appeal, the divorce case of the plaintiff-counter defendant man remained without issue. For this reason, the court had to overturn the provision stating that there is “no place to make a decision” since the case remains without a case in terms of the man’s case and to decide on the costs of the trial and the proxy fee according to the state of justice in the case.

Conclusion: The appealed judgment is stated above in paragraph 2. for the reason described in the subparagraph, the parts of the provision that are outside the scope of the violation are 1 above. to be approved for the reason shown in the paragraph, the fee written below ….. it was unanimously decided that there is no place to charge other fees, since the appeal application fee of 143.50 TL was deposited in advance, the appeal advance fee should be returned to the depositor T … on request, the way to correct the decision should be open within 15 days from the notification of this decision. 25.01.2018

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