Precedent-setting ruling from the Court of Cassation: Bad news for husbands who prevent their wives from seeing their families

According to information obtained from the Jurisprudence Bulletin, in a divorce case heard in Ankara where the spouses mutually demanded 100 thousand Turkish Liras in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages from each other, the court of first instance found the husband to be fully at fault and the wife to be faultless due to the husband's actions: being unloving and indifferent toward his wife since the beginning of the marriage, failing to meet the household's needs, leaving the plaintiff without money and thus committing economic violence, insulting and belittling his wife, preventing her from establishing personal relationships with her parents, and avoiding spending time with his wife. The court rejected the husband's counter-lawsuit, accepted the wife's primary lawsuit, and ruled for the divorce of the parties in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 166 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Law No. 4721). It also ordered a monthly alimony of 250 TL for the wife, a monthly poverty alimony of 350 TL on the grounds that she would fall into poverty upon divorce, and, citing the fulfillment of legal requirements, awarded 10 thousand TL in pecuniary and 15 thousand TL in non-pecuniary damages to the wife, along with legal interest to accrue from the date the decision becomes final.

Following the objection filed by the husband's attorney, the case went to the appellate court, which overturned the decision. The appellate court decided to reject both lawsuits and dismissed all of the wife's and the remaining appellate requests of the husband on their merits. Following this decision, the attorney for the plaintiff-counter-defendant filed an appeal regarding the wife's rejected lawsuit and its ancillary claims.
Upon the decision being overturned by the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the file was sent to the Regional Court of Justice.

Complying with the reversal decree, the Regional Court of Justice decided to grant the divorce, stating that the wife was not at fault, that as a result of the divorce she had at least lost the financial support of the other spouse, and that "the husband's restriction of the wife's contact with her family" constituted an attack on the woman's personal rights. Taking into account the social and economic status of the parties, their faults, and the principle of equity, the court awarded 30 thousand TL in pecuniary and 30 thousand TL in non-pecuniary damages to the wife.

The defendant-counter-plaintiff husband filed an appeal against the aforementioned decision of the Regional Court of Justice within the legal timeframe.

"OBJECTIONS WERE NOT FOUND VALID"

The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which re-examined the file, stated as a result of its appellate review: "It is understood that there is no inaccuracy in the application of legal rules to the concrete case in the decision of the Regional Court of Justice under appellate review and in the reasoning of the decision, and that the judgment was rendered in accordance with the reversal decision; therefore, the appellate objections of the defendant-counter-plaintiff husband's attorney, except for the scope of the following paragraph, were not found valid.

Considering the determined economic and social status of the parties, the degree of fault in the events leading to the divorce, the purchasing power of money, and the scope of the existing and expected interests violated, the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages awarded to the wife are excessive. Taking into account the rules of equity regulated in Article 4 of Law No. 4721 and Articles 50 and 51 of Law No. 6098, and in accordance with the first and second paragraphs of Article 174 of Law No. 4721, a more appropriate amount of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages should have been determined; therefore, establishing the judgment in the written manner necessitated a reversal." The Court of Cassation thus accepted that the husband's restriction of his wife's contact with her family constituted an attack on the woman's personal rights, but sent the file back to the Regional Court of Justice on the grounds that the amount of compensation awarded against the husband was excessive.

News Source: İHA