2. Legal Department 2020/4728 E. , 2020/5981 K.
“Text Of Jurisprudence”
COURT : Gaziantep Regional Court of Justice 2. law office
TYPE OF CASE : Divorce
At the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, the judgment given by the legal department of the regional court of justice, the date and number shown above, was appealed by the plaintiff woman in terms of decency, defect determination, rejection of compensation claims and alimony, the paperwork was read and discussed as necessary and considered:
1- In the examination of the plaintiff’s petition for an appeal that the woman will receive trappings;
In the examination of the plaintiff’s petition for an appeal against the claim that the woman will receive trappings;
362 of HMK No. 6100. Article 1. in accordance with paragraph b of paragraph “Decisions on cases whose amount or value does not exceed forty thousand Turkish liras (including this amount)” cannot be appealed. article 44 of the Law No. 6763 of 02.12.2016. article 6100 of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as the monetary limits of the appeal in accordance with additional article 1 (H.M. M. October 1999), which are added to the Civil Procedure Code. 341, 362) Article 298 of the Tax Procedure Code.according to the article, it is envisaged to increase the revaluation rate to be determined and announced every year. As of the date of the decision, this amount has been determined as “72.070,00 TL”.
The amount of the trappings subject to the claimant-woman’s request is TL 15,000.00 and the decision of the regional court of justice is final in accordance with article 362/1-a of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100, as the appeal review at the date of the decision does not exceed the certainty limit. For the reason described, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of the plaintiff’s petition for the appeal in terms of the request that she receive trappings.
2-According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons in accordance with the law, and in particular, there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, the plaintiff woman’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraphs are inappropriate.
By the court of first instance, on the grounds that the plaintiff woman and the defendant man did not make the necessary efforts to maintain the marital union of a joint life, the parties were equally defective, the woman’s TMK 174/1-2 m. it has been decided to reject the financial and non-pecuniary compensation claims issued.
The plaintiff has been appealed by the woman for the provision, receipt of trappings, determination of defects, rejection of compensation claims and alimony.
It has been decided by the legal department of the regional court of justice that the woman’s appeal application should be rejected on the basis of HMK 353/1-b -1.
3-When it comes to the examination of the plaintiff woman’s defect determination, appeals for the rejection of compensation claims;
There is no proven defect in the case file arising from the plaintiff woman. Besides the man’s existing flaws, it has been proven by witness statements within the scope of the file that he has removed his wife from the house, that he has not provided an independent home in a spiritual sense, and that the woman’s right to education has been jul-tered. In shaking the foundation of the marriage union, the defendant man is completely flawed.
4-Above 3. as explained in the paragraph; It is understood that the plaintiff woman seeking compensation for the events that caused the shake-up of the marriage union is not severely or equally defective, and these events constitute an attack on the woman’s personality rights. As a result of the divorce, this spouse has lost at least the financial support of the other. In that case, the social and economic situation of the parties, the weight of the act that is the basis for compensation and the rules of equity (TMK m. 4) considering the material and moral compensation for the benefit of women (TMK m. 174/1-2) while it was necessary to make a decision, it was not considered correct to make a decision in writing as a result of incorrect defect determination, it required to be overturned.
CONCLUSION: The above 3rd part of the appealed provision. and 4. for the reasons indicated in the paragraphs, the decision of the district court of justice was LIFTED, the decision of the court of first instance was OVERTURNED, and the plaintiff’s petition for an appeal against the claim that the woman would receive trappings was filed above (1.) it was unanimously decided to REJECT it for the reason shown in paragraph 2, to APPROVE the decision for the reason shown in paragraph 2, to return the advance fee of the appeal to the depositor upon request, to send the file to the court of first instance, a sample of the decision to the relevant district court of justice’s legal department. 19.11.2020 (Prs.)