Court of Cassation rules comparing new spouse to deceased spouse is grounds for divorce

The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation found a husband who compared his wife to his deceased former spouse to be fully at fault in a divorce case, ruling for the couple's divorce and ordering the man to pay alimony and compensation to the woman.

According to the chamber's ruling, a man living in Ankara filed for divorce, claiming that his wife did not show him affection, had abandoned the home, used jewelry belonging to his deceased wife, performed alterations such as resizing and changing names on the jewelry without informing him, and was planning a divorce. The man requested 50 thousand liras in pecuniary and 50 thousand liras in non-pecuniary damages from the court.

WIFE FILED A COUNTER-SUIT

The woman, who filed a counter-suit against the case brought by her husband, claimed that his allegations were untrue, that the man constantly compared her to his deceased wife, belittled and ostracized her, insulted her, and also kicked her out of the house. The woman requested that 1,500 liras in interim and poverty alimony be awarded in her favor, along with 100 thousand liras in pecuniary and 100 thousand liras in non-pecuniary damages.

The local court conducting the trial determined that 'the husband compared his wife to his former spouse and did not want the woman in the marital home, and that the woman's fault could not be proven.' Finding the husband fully at fault, the court ruled for the divorce of the parties and ordered the man to pay 1,500 liras in interim and poverty alimony, as well as 40 thousand liras in pecuniary and 30 thousand liras in non-pecuniary damages to the woman.

Upon the appeal filed against the local court's decision, the 1st Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Justice decided to reject the husband's appeal on its merits. The husband then filed an appeal with the Court of Cassation.

COURT OF CASSATION UPHELD THE DECISION

Reviewing the objection made against the local court's decision, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation determined that the local court's ruling was in accordance with the law.

Determining that the reasons put forward by the plaintiff husband in his appeal petition were not of a nature to require the reversal of the decision, the Chamber ruled to uphold the decision in accordance with Article 370 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100.

News Source: AA