Precedent-setting ruling from the Court of Cassation on divorce cases: 'A man not attending to his wife...'

The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has issued a notable ruling regarding divorce cases. The decision stated that the faulty behaviors of "the man not attending to his home and family, not meeting their needs, and not having a steady job" do not constitute an attack on the plaintiff woman's personal rights.

THE REGIONAL APPEALS COURT'S DECISION WAS APPEALED

According to information obtained from the Jurisprudence Bulletin Application, the 10th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice had ruled in favor of the woman and against the husband regarding non-pecuniary damages in a divorce and compensation case heard between the spouses.

The husband appealed this decision within the legal timeframe, and the file was reviewed by the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation.

"NOT AN ATTACK ON PERSONAL RIGHTS"

Following its review, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated the following:

"The faulty behaviors of the defendant husband, accepted and established by the court, such as 'not attending to his home and family, not meeting their needs, and not having a steady job,' do not constitute an attack on the plaintiff woman's personal rights. The conditions of the second paragraph of Article 174 of Law No. 4721 have not been met in favor of the woman. Therefore, while the plaintiff woman's request for non-pecuniary damages should have been rejected, the decision to accept it as written was not found to be correct and required reversal."

CARRIES PRECEDENT IN DIVORCE CASES

With this decision, it has been established as jurisprudence that claims frequently encountered in divorce cases, such as "a spouse's indifference" or "unemployment," do not by themselves constitute grounds for non-pecuniary damages. Thus, the Court of Cassation has signed off on an important precedent by stating that non-pecuniary damages cannot be awarded even if such claims exist.