Precedent-setting ruling from the Court of Cassation: Stinginess deemed grounds for divorce and compensation
The Court of Cassation has ruled that forcing a spouse to sit in the dark under the guise of saving money, and restricting heating and basic food needs, can be considered grounds for divorce and financial compensation. It was noted that the decision could serve as a precedent for similar cases.
İHA
In a divorce case involving disputes over household expenses, the assessment of the Court of Cassation has drawn attention. The high court ruled that behaviors that restrict a spouse's basic needs under the pretext of saving money and negatively affect living conditions can be considered grounds for divorce and compensation.
APPLIED TO COURT ALLEGING EXTREME STINGINESS
A woman identified as K.L. applied to the Family Court, claiming that her husband acted with extreme stinginess, did not want guests in the house, and had made the shared living space uninhabitable. Arguing that even basic needs were not adequately met, K.L. stated that her husband constantly scolded her for various reasons and kicked her out of the house.
K.L. used the following expressions in her petition:
"He constantly insults me and kicks me out of the house for reasons like, 'you left the bathroom light on too long, you flushed the toilet.' He does not buy food supplies or detergent even if there is only one potato left. He even forbade me from brewing tea. He did not pay attention to his personal hygiene either. He was constantly emphasizing that he could cheat on me. I request that our divorce be granted due to the breakdown of the marital union, and that I be awarded 1,500 TL in monthly poverty alimony, as well as 30,000 TL in material and 50,000 TL in moral compensation with interest."
NOTABLE ASSESSMENT FROM THE COURT OF CASSATION
Reviewing the file, the Court of Cassation decided that behaviors such as forcing a spouse to sit in the dark on the grounds that the electricity bill would increase, restricting heating, and limiting basic food needs in the house under the pretext of preventing food waste could constitute grounds for divorce and material compensation.
THE DECISION CARRIES PRECEDENT VALUE
Following the decision, while citizens in Bursa expressed varying opinions, legal circles pointed out that the ruling in question could set a precedent for similar cases.