2. Legal Department 2021/3053 E. , 2021/4436 K.
“Text Of Jurisprudence”
COURT : Bursa District Court of Justice 2. law office
TYPE OF CASE : Divorce
At the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, the decision given by the dec office of the district court of justice, the date and number shown above, was appealed by the plaintiff woman, the documents were read and discussed as necessary and considered:
It was decided to reject the divorce case filed by the plaintiff woman, an appeal was filed by the plaintiff woman against the decision, and the plaintiff woman appealed against the decision after the district court decided to reject it on the merits. Mahkemce “the parties before the trial they live together in Erzincan, the plaintiff on the grounds of incompatibility and Yalova to leave when it’s the woman there came a divorce, during the trial, the plaintiff and the defendant jointly with the parties they made up before Erzincan again go back to the houses, they lived together for a month or two, before the trial of the offending behaviour that occurred at hand is forgiven by the parties mutual, or at least acceptance that is tolerated if it is necessary to be considered in determination of defect it is not possible. It is not necessary for the parties to establish husband–wife relations in the dimension of sexuality for the acceptance of amnesty or tolerance, and the plaintiff is the woman who avoids this according to the scope of the file. For this reason, although it has been decided to ”dismiss the case”; the fact that the plaintiff woman returned home but did not stay in the same room with the man shows that this behavior is a reconciliation negotiation so it cannot be considered as an amnesty. Contrary to the justification of the court of first instance, the woman’s reason for abstaining from sexual intercourse required the woman’s acceptance that she had not forgiven the man from the statement “Everything has not been fixed yet” in the statement of the common children heard as witnesses. In this case, the woman’s return home cannot be considered an amnesty in itself.
From the entire scope of the file, it is understood that the defendant did not want the man to meet with the woman’s family, took the house key and kicked him out of the house. Then, according to the defective behavior of the man, the man is completely defective in the events that caused the divorce. There is no doubt that the continuation of the marriage union has been shaken from its foundation to an unexpected degree from the spouses. Considering the events reflected in the file as a whole, there is a subsistence level between the parties that will shake the common life from its foundation and will not allow the continuation of the union, and this is constant, taking into account that the divorce conditions contained in Article 166/1 of the TMK have been created, while the plaintiff woman’s case should be accepted, the refusal was not correct and required deconstruction.
CONCLUSION: the court of Appeals for the District Courthouse, the abolition of the decision of the court of First Instance for the reason that shown above, corruption, destruction, according to the appeals of Appeals for now to study other cause, whether she tucks back into the provision of tuition in advance of the request for appeal, the court of First Instance of the file, from the decision of the court of justice law office to be sent to an instance of the relevant regional exact, it was decided unanimously. 03.06.2021 (Mon.)