Precedent-setting 'alimony' ruling from the Court of Cassation: 'No alimony for a daughter-in-law who insults her mother-in-law'
The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation overturned a lower court's decision to grant alimony to a woman in a divorce case, citing her insults toward her mother-in-law. The reasoning for the decision stated, 'Poverty alimony cannot be awarded in favor of a fully at-fault woman.'
12punto
According to the ruling by the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, a couple filed for divorce against each other on the grounds that their marital union had been fundamentally shaken.
DECISION TO GRANT ALIMONY
The local court found both the woman, who had insulted her husband's mother, and the husband, who had responded to her, at fault, and decided to grant the divorce and award poverty alimony to the woman.
After the 4th Civil Chamber of the Samsun Regional Court of Justice found the local court's decision to be in accordance with the law, the parties appealed the decision regarding the "determination of fault and alimony."
DECISION OVERTURNED
Reviewing the appeal request, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation overturned the local court's decision.
In the chamber's reasoning, it was stated that the woman had persistently and severely insulted her husband's mother, while the man had responded in a reactive manner.
In this context, the reasoning stated that it was incorrect to find the man at fault, noting: "In the events that caused the marital union to be fundamentally shaken, it must be accepted that the defendant-plaintiff woman is fully at fault, and the joined lawsuit filed by the fully at-fault woman must be rejected."
WOMAN FOUND 'FULLY AT FAULT'
Recalling that according to Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code, the party who will fall into poverty due to divorce may request indefinite alimony from the other party in proportion to their financial means, provided that their fault is not greater, the reasoning stated that it was determined in the current case that the woman was "fully at fault."
The reasoning stated: "Poverty alimony cannot be awarded in favor of a fully at-fault woman. Therefore, it was not found correct to accept the woman's request for poverty alimony when it should have been rejected, which necessitated the overturning of the decision."