Precedent-setting ruling for spouses who are victims of violence

The Court of Cassation has issued a precedent-setting ruling for spouses who are victims of violence. According to information obtained from the Case Law Bulletin (İçtihat Bülteni) application, in mutual divorce cases filed by spouses against each other, the plaintiff's attorney claimed that the parties had two children together, and that the defendant wife had violated her duty of loyalty by having an affair with a man at her workplace. The attorney requested that the parties be divorced, that custody be granted to the father, and that 50 thousand TL in pecuniary and 50 thousand TL in non-pecuniary damages be paid to his client.

In the response and counter-divorce petition, the attorney for the defendant-counter-plaintiff denied all allegations, stating that she had not engaged in any behavior violating the duty of loyalty, that the other party had failed to fulfill his marital duties, had been irresponsible and indifferent toward his wife, had committed physical violence, and had used unspeakable profanities and kicked her out of the house. The attorney requested the dismissal of the original case, the acceptance of the counter-case, the divorce of the parties, and that custody be granted to the mother.

The Court of First Instance ruled for the acceptance of both cases, the divorce of the parties, the granting of custody to the mother, and ordered the payment of interim and child support for the joint children, as well as interim and poverty alimony and compensation for the wife. The attorneys for both parties filed an appeal against this decision within the legal timeframe.

The Regional Court of Justice ruled that since it was understood that the wife had violated her duty of loyalty by bringing another man into the home, the woman was heavily at fault and the man was slightly at fault in the events leading to the breakdown of the marital union. Consequently, it rejected all of the woman's appeals, accepted the man's appeals regarding the determination of fault, alimony, and compensation, and ruled for the payment of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the man, while rejecting the wife's requests for alimony and compensation.

Following the appeal review, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation issued a reversal decision on the grounds that both spouses were equally at fault. Although the Special Chamber mentioned that the man's physical violence against the woman was continuous, the Regional Court of Justice issued a resistance decision, arguing that the statements of the wife's parents regarding this matter were abstract declarations lacking specific time and place details. The attorney for the defendant-counter-plaintiff filed an appeal against the resistance decision within the legal timeframe, and the file was brought to the agenda of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation.

"NOT ADOPTED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE ASSEMBLY"

The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation included the following statements in its reversal decision:

"As stated in the Special Chamber's reversal decision, it has been understood that the physical violence occurred in a continuous manner. Since the incident of physical violence is attributed to the man through witness testimonies, it must be accepted that the physical violence was continuous by evaluating the accounts as a whole. It was not correct to accept that the parts of the witness testimonies that were not taken as the basis for the judgment could not be used as a basis for the ruling due to erroneous reasoning, while other parts regarding the same subject were accepted. When the faulty behaviors of the parties are compared according to the events that occurred, it must be accepted that the spouses are equally at fault. The legislator has not imposed an obligation on spouses who exhibit equally faulty behavior in events that cause the breakdown of the marital union to compensate for the decrease in economic status that will occur due to the divorce. Under these circumstances, the acceptance that the wife was heavily at fault and the subsequent decision to award compensation to the man based on this fault determination, which does not align with the scope of the file, necessitated a reversal. During the deliberations in the General Assembly of Civil Chambers, the view was put forward that accepting the wife as heavily at fault in the events leading to the divorce and deciding to award compensation to the husband based on this fault determination was appropriate to the concrete case and equity; that the behavior of the wife, who did not file for divorce and continued the marital union despite the alleged ongoing physical violence by the man, was contrary to the ordinary flow of life; and therefore, the resistance decision should be upheld because the main event causing the divorce was the woman's violation of the duty of loyalty. However, this view was not adopted by the majority of the Assembly for the reasons explained above."