Precedent ruling from the Court of Cassation: Calling a spouse a 'donkey' is grounds for divorce and compensation

The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has issued a precedent-setting ruling stating that insults directed at a spouse must be taken into account when assessing fault and compensation in divorce cases. The Chamber decided that a husband who called his wife a 'donkey' and an 'animal' should be considered heavily at fault.

In a mutual divorce case filed by a couple experiencing severe marital discord, the Family Court initially ruled that the husband was entirely at fault on the grounds that he drank alcohol every day in a way that negatively affected family life, swore at his wife, used derogatory language, and acted irresponsibly.

Following an appeal of the decision, the Regional Court of Justice overturned the ruling for a retrial. In the subsequent proceedings, the Family Court found the parties equally at fault and rejected the woman's claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which intervened after the file was appealed, did not find the local court's assessment of equal fault to be appropriate. The Chamber pointed out that the insults and derogatory acts attributed to the husband were continuous, whereas the act of violence attributed to the woman was a one-time occurrence.

The Court of Cassation overturned the decision, stating that the husband should be considered more heavily at fault than the wife in the events leading to the divorce. The Chamber emphasized that the court should award an appropriate amount of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in favor of the woman, taking into account the social and economic status of the parties and the rules of equity.

The ruling stated the following:

"The determination of fault by the Court of First Instance, which found the parties equally at fault for the events leading to the divorce, is incorrect due to the continuity of the husband's actions—as attributed by the court—of drinking alcohol every day in a way that negatively affected the plaintiff's family life, swearing at his wife, and demeaning her by calling her a 'donkey' and an 'animal,' while the woman's act of violence against the husband was a one-time occurrence. Based on the faulty behaviors accepted and realized by the court, and especially considering that the physical violence attributed to the woman was mutual, it must be accepted that the defendant-counter-plaintiff husband is more heavily at fault than the plaintiff-counter-defendant wife in the events that caused the marital union to collapse. Failing to consider this, the erroneous determination of fault and the resulting conclusion that the parties were equally at fault is not considered correct and requires reversal. It is stipulated that the innocent or less-faulty party, whose rights have been damaged due to the divorce, may request appropriate pecuniary damages from the faulty party, and the second paragraph of the same article stipulates that the party whose personal rights have been attacked due to the events leading to the divorce may request an appropriate amount of money as non-pecuniary damages from the other faulty party. It is understood that the woman requesting compensation was not heavily or equally at fault in the events leading to the collapse of the marital union, that the husband's faulty actions constituted an attack on the woman's personal rights, and that as a result of the divorce, this spouse at least lost the financial support of the other. Therefore, the Court should have awarded an appropriate amount of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in favor of the woman, taking into account the social and economic status of the parties and the rules of equity; issuing a ruling in the written manner as a result of an erroneous determination of fault is not considered correct and requires reversal.’’