Those who don't call their mother-in-law 'mom' are in trouble!

The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has established a criterion that will set a precedent for similar cases while delivering its final verdict on a divorce case that had previously been appealed. The high court found the local court's decision to be in accordance with the law, which ruled that a woman who did not address her father-in-law and mother-in-law as "mom and dad" was "at fault" in the divorce case.

The Bursa 8th Family Court, which conducted the trial, deemed the defendant woman fully at fault on the grounds that she did not address her mother-in-law and father-in-law as "mom and dad," acted coldly toward them, exhibited excessive jealousy toward her husband, and abandoned the home, and subsequently ruled for the divorce of the parties and rejected the woman's claims for compensation.

Upon an appeal, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Bursa Regional Court of Justice reviewed the decision and ruled that the behavior mentioned in the local court's decision—specifically that "the woman did not address her mother-in-law and father-in-law as 'mom and dad' within the marital union"—did not constitute a fault that would fundamentally shake the marital union, and therefore ruled that the parties were equally at fault. The chamber decided to partially accept the woman's appeal.

Following the appeal of the appellate court's decision, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation reviewed the file and found the woman, who did not address her mother-in-law and father-in-law as "mom and dad," to be heavily at fault in the divorce, ruling for the reversal of the appellate decision while upholding the decision regarding the divorce of the parties.

HOW THE 'FAULT RATIOS' OF THE PARTIES WERE DETERMINED

In the Court of Cassation's decision, it was stated that the ruling regarding the fundamental breakdown of the parties' marital union and their divorce was appropriate according to legal provisions, but that the assessment made regarding the determination of the parties' fault ratios was erroneous.

The Court of Cassation's decision noted that the behavior attributed to the husband as a fault by the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Bursa Regional Court of Justice—specifically his statement that "he did not want to live with the defendant woman"—occurred during the parties' separation period, and therefore could not be attributed to the husband as a fault.

The decision, which included the finding that "according to the other determined and realized faulty behaviors, the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman is fully at fault in the events leading to the divorce," concluded that "it is appropriate for the court of first instance to decide on the rejection of the defendant-counter-plaintiff woman's divorce case."

In this context, the decision stated that the woman's divorce request had become moot, and it was reported that it was also incorrect for the appellate court to rule in favor of the woman regarding litigation expenses and attorney fees.