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

Poverty Alimony Shall Not Be Imposed On a Woman Who Works And Has a Steady Income Supreme Court Decision

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

T.C
SUPREME
2. law office
MAIN NUMBER:2016/16665
DECISION NO:2018/5562
DECISION DATE: 25.04.2018
COURT : Family Court
TYPE OF CASE : Divorce

>POVERTY ALIMONY IS NOT IMPOSED ON A WOMAN WHO WORKS AND HAS A STEADY INCOME.

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, is appealed by the defendant male in terms of determining the defect, alimony and compensation, the documents are read and Decisively discussed
thought:

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

2-From the evidence collected, it is understood that the woman works, has a regular and continuous income. For the benefit of women TMK m. 175 conditions have not been formed. While it was necessary to decide on the rejection of the claimant woman’s request for poverty alimony, the decision to accept it in writing was not correct and required an annulment.

CONCLUSION: The above of the appealed judgment 2. for the reason shown in the paragraph, the sections subject to DETERIORATION and the sections subject to appeal that are outside the scope of deterioration are listed above. l. it was unanimously decided to approve it for the reason indicated in the paragraph, to return the advance fee for the appeal to the depositor upon request, with the way of correcting the decision being open within 15 days from the notification of this decision. 25.04.2018

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

Alimony, Removal of Precautionary Alimony Relative Fee Obligation Supreme Court Decision Objection to Signature, Decision of the Court of Cassation on the Necessity of Obtaining Samples of Signatures Before the Parties at the Hearing

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