Court of Cassation issues precedent-setting ruling: Bad news for those who constantly change household items

A 43-year marriage was brought to the judiciary through mutual divorce filings. The legal battle, which began following the parties' mutual allegations, concluded with a decision by the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation after passing through various courts.

PARTIES ACCUSED EACH OTHER

The woman, a retired teacher, claimed that her husband, a retired civil servant, was addicted to gambling, did not even pay the household bills, and left the family in a difficult economic situation. In the petition, she argued that her husband frequently insulted her by saying, "Are you a woman? You are the biggest idiot."

The man claimed that his wife's behavior caused the breakdown of the marital union. Alleging that his wife treated him poorly, slandered him, and subjected him to violence and insults, the man stated that he was kicked out of the house and demanded 75 thousand lira in material compensation, 75 thousand lira in moral compensation, and a thousand lira in poverty alimony, in addition to the divorce.

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE FOUND THE WOMAN HEAVILY AT FAULT

The Family Court determined that the man had played gambling games during the marriage, did not meet the household's needs, and that creditors had come to the house due to his debts. The court also determined that the parties had insulted each other.

In the decision, it was stated that the man called his wife "stupid, idiot," while the woman used expressions such as "dirty slob, you spread your filth everywhere, moron" toward her husband.

The court also concluded that the woman prevented her husband from meeting with his family, did not accept guests into the home, and caused unnecessary expenses by constantly changing household items. For all these reasons, it was ruled that the woman was more heavily at fault than the man.

In this context, while the divorce of the parties was granted, the woman's requests for material and moral compensation and poverty alimony were rejected. In favor of the man, 5 thousand lira in material and 5 thousand lira in moral compensation were awarded.

FILE WENT TO THE COURT OF CASSATION

After the decision was appealed, the Regional Court of Justice decided that the parties were equally at fault. However, the file was returned by the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation. While the court of first instance insisted on its previous decision, the Regional Court of Justice maintained its view. Thereupon, the file came before the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation for final review.

PRECEDENT-SETTING EVALUATION FROM THE COURT OF CASSATION

The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation evaluated the evidence in the file and ruled that the woman was heavily at fault, while the man was less at fault.

The Board included the following evaluation in its decision:

"When the scope of the file is evaluated as a whole; it is seen that the husband played gambling games and did not pay his debts, whereas the wife insulted the husband, kicked him out of the house, slept in separate beds, did not accept guests into the home, and caused expenses by constantly changing household items. Although the Regional Court of Justice decision attributed the fact that the husband 'cursed at his wife and children' as a fault, it is not correct to attribute the fact of 'cursing at his wife and children' as a fault to the defendant-plaintiff husband because the witness statements on this subject were contradictory. When these faulty behaviors are compared, it is indisputable that the parties cannot be considered equally at fault on the grounds that their faults are equivalent to each other, and that the woman is heavily at fault and the man is less at fault in the events that caused the divorce. Such being the case, the rejection of the husband's compensation claims based on this fault determination, which does not comply with the scope of the file by accepting that the parties are equally at fault, is not in accordance with the explained legal regulations and principles."

News Source: İHA