Remarkable ruling from the Court of Cassation: Spouse who refused to accept guests at home, not the one who gambled, found heavily at fault

The couple, who had been married for 43 years, filed for divorce against each other in the Family Court. The wife, a retired teacher, alleged that her husband, a retired civil servant, was addicted to games of chance, did not pay the household bills, and filed for divorce to prolong the proceedings.

The woman also claimed that her husband, whom she married in 1981, occasionally used expressions such as "are you even a woman, you are the biggest moron."

In his defense in court, the husband argued that his wife's behavior was the reason for the breakdown of the marital union. He maintained that his wife treated him poorly, made baseless allegations against him, and that he was subjected to insults and psychological pressure despite living a simple life.

FIRST INSTANCE COURT FOUND THE WIFE HEAVILY AT FAULT

The Family Court, which examined the file, determined that the husband played games of chance during the marriage, did not meet the household's needs, and that creditors came to the house due to his debts. The court also determined that the wife had insulted her husband.

The ruling noted that the wife prevented her husband from seeing his family, did not accept guests into the home, and made unnecessary expenses by constantly changing household furniture.

The court ruled that both parties were at fault, but that the wife was more heavily at fault. Accordingly, while the parties were granted a divorce, the wife's requests for material and moral compensation and poverty alimony were rejected. In favor of the husband, 5 thousand lira in material and 5 thousand lira in moral compensation were awarded.

THE FILE WAS CARRIED TO THE COURT OF CASSATION

The decision was appealed. The Regional Court of Justice assessed that the parties were equally at fault. After the file returned from the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the Family Court insisted on its initial decision. When the Regional Court of Justice maintained its previous decision, the file came before the Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers.

PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING FROM THE COURT OF CASSATION

In its assessment of the file, the Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers took into account the wife's refusal to accept guests at home and her constant changing of household furniture in its fault assessment.

The ruling included the following statements:

"When the scope of the file is evaluated as a whole; it is seen that the husband played games of chance and did not pay his debts, whereas the wife insulted the husband, kicked the husband out of the house, separated the beds, did not accept guests into the home, and constantly changed household furniture, incurring expenses. Although the Regional Court of Justice decision attributed the fact of ‘swearing at his wife and children’ as a fault to the husband, it is not correct to attribute the fact of ‘swearing at his wife and children’ as a fault to the defendant-plaintiff husband because the witness statements on this subject are contradictory.

When these faulty behaviors are compared, it is indisputable that they cannot be considered equally at fault on the grounds that the faults of the parties are equivalent to each other, and that the wife is heavily at fault and the husband is less at fault in the events that caused the divorce. Such being the case, it is not in accordance with the explained legal regulations and principles to decide to reject the husband's compensation claims based on this fault determination, which does not correspond to the scope of the file, by accepting that the parties are equally at fault."

With this assessment, the Assembly ruled that the wife was heavily at fault and that material and moral compensation should be awarded in favor of the husband.

News Source: İHA