The Bride Price Will Not Be Asked Back

T.C. SUPREME
13. Legal Department Main No:2014/19529
Decision No: 2014/20906 Decision Date: 24.06.2014 SUPREME COURT DECISION
COURT: Şereflikoçhisar 1. The Court Of First Instance
DATE: 29/01/2013
NUMBER: 2011/180-2013/76

At the end of the trial of the receivable case between the parties, the file was examined upon the appeal of the defendants’ lawyer within the period of the judgment issued for partial acceptance and partial rejection of the case for the reasons written in the decision, and the case was discussed and considered Decisively.
decision
Plaintiff, defendant Y.. A..the other defendant, who is the daughter of N.. A..’i, the son of M. He. in order to be able to marry the defendant father, 6.000,00 TL security money, gold for 6.000,00 TL and clothes for 3.500,00 TL were bought and delivered, defendant N. that his son had married, but the defendant Y.. A..stating that the defendant did not perform an official wedding, that his daughter received alimony from his divorced wife when they requested an official wedding, and that the defendant took his daughter away, that the defendants had unfairly caused him a loss of 15,500.00 TL, he demanded and sued for a decision to collect 15,500 TL from the defendants, and to impose court costs on the defendants.

The defendants have requested that the case be dismissed. The court decided to partially accept the case, to take 5.000 TL from the defendants and to give it to the plaintiff, to reject the request for excess; the verdict was appealed by the defendants. Among other claims, the plaintiff claimed that he gave defendant Yaşar 5.000,00 TL security money (bride price) in order to marry the other defendant Nurgül, who is the daughter of defendant Yaşar, and his own son, and requested the refund of this price. According to the court, “…the plaintiff’s son and one of the defendants N.. A..it is understood that the plaintiff received clothes and Decoys to the defendant as a wedding gift before the parties lived together, the jewelry and gold pieces received as a wedding gift belonged to the woman, and it was decided to reject the request for their price. Although the plaintiff stated that he gave the defendants TL 6,000 security money, there was no written document stating that he gave TL 6,000 money, and it was accepted that TL 5,000 security money was given to the defendants by the plaintiff, taking into account that the defendants admitted that TL 5,000 money was given, and the witnesses also declared that TL 5,000 money was given by the plaintiff. It has been understood from the scope of the file that the money given by the plaintiff to the defendants was given as security money, bride price. The witnesses also stated that 5.000 TL was given to the defendant Yaşar by the plaintiff as a security money. The defendants also admitted that the 5.000 TL security money was given by the plaintiff. As a rule, a person’s freedom of behavior is limited by the rules of law and general morality. The sanction of the unlawful exceeding or affecting of the freedom of contract SEE.nun 19 and 20. it has been shown in its articles and it has been accepted that such a commitment is invalid. A person’s marriage to whomever he wishes is a requirement of his fundamental rights and freedoms, within the limits prescribed by law. Since the security money, the property or money that the girl’s father receives under the name of the title in exchange for her consent to marriage will be illegal in these measures, the bonds and commitments that provide it should also be considered null and void. For these reasons, it was necessary to decide Jul 5,000, which was received as security money, to be returned to the plaintiff …”with the reasons, it was decided to reject the plaintiff’s other claims, but to accept the request for the security fee intended to ensure the marriage in question. It is regulated that the marriage should be performed within the framework of the principles determined by the Civil Code of the joint and free will of the parties. There is no regulation in the Civil Code and other laws that a price may be requested under the name of security money (Jul money) for the purpose of ensuring marriage. It is obvious that the money paid under this name is contrary to general morality and public order. The missing money paid in violation of public morality and public order is in the nature of a debt and cannot be claimed through a lawsuit. In this case, while the court should reject the case completely on the stated grounds, it is contrary to the procedure and the law to make a written decision with an erroneous assessment without taking into account this issue and requires an annulment.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 24.6.2014 to OVERTURN the appealed decision for the benefit of the defendants for the reason described above, and to refund the TL 85.40 fee received in advance upon request.

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