Under the heading “Shaking of the Marriage Union” in Article 166 of the Turkish Civil Code, the issue of the marriage union being shaken to its core is explained as one of the general grounds for divorce. According to Article 166 of the TCC: “If the marriage union is shaken to its core to such an extent that the parties cannot be expected to continue their common life, each of the spouses may file for divorce.”
In order to file a divorce lawsuit based on the grounds of the marriage union being shaken to its core; an event or attitude that destabilizes the marriage must occur, and this event or attitude must make the continuation of the marriage union impossible for the spouses. Indeed, arguments occur and certain problems arise between spouses within a marriage union. However, if these arguments and quarrels do not make the continuation of the marriage impossible for the spouses, a divorce will not be granted on these grounds.
The judge must be convinced that the divorce will be more beneficial for the parties and society. The judge will evaluate the concrete case by taking into account the statements of the parties and witnesses, and shall only rule for divorce if at least one of the spouses cannot be expected to maintain the common life.
The shaking of the marriage union to its core is regulated generally in the law, and the reasons that may result in such a shaking of the marriage union are not limited in number (numerus clausus). What can be included within this scope has been shaped largely by the decisions of the Court of Cassation.
Examples of some reasons found in Court of Cassation decisions include: slandering the spouse, disclosing family secrets, preventing the spouse from meeting with their family, insulting the spouse’s family, stating that one does not love their spouse, exhibiting extreme jealousy, causing numerous execution proceedings by becoming excessively indebted, isolating the spouse from social environments, playing horse races and endangering the family’s economic situation, continuous alcohol consumption, avoiding bathing without a justified reason, one spouse taking money from the other’s pocket, and preventing the woman from practicing her profession.
The full text of the Court of Cassation decision, which considers the arrival of an attachment at the house as a result of the husband’s excessive indebtedness as a ground for divorce, is as follows:
SUMMARY: It is understood that the defendant husband did not fulfill the obligations of the union and caused an attachment to be placed on the joint residence by becoming excessively indebted. These events were also found proven by the court and accepted as a ground for divorce. Since these realized actions of the defendant constitute an attack on the personal rights of the plaintiff spouse and fulfill the conditions of Article 174/2 of the Turkish Civil Code in favor of the plaintiff; an appropriate amount of moral damages must be awarded in favor of the plaintiff, taking into account the economic and social conditions of the parties as well as their degrees of fault.
LAWSUIT: At the end of the trial of the case between the parties, the judgment rendered by the local court, the date and number of which are shown above, was appealed; the documents were read and discussed:
DECISION: 1- According to the documents in the file, the evidence upon which the decision is based, the reasons compliant with the law, and especially since no error was observed in the appreciation of the evidence, all appeal objections of the defendant husband and those of the plaintiff woman outside the scope of the following paragraph are groundless.
2- From the investigation conducted and the evidence collected, it is understood that the defendant husband did not fulfill the obligations of the union and caused an attachment to be placed on the joint residence by becoming excessively indebted. These events were also found proven by the court and accepted as a ground for divorce. Since these realized actions of the defendant constitute an attack on the personal rights of the plaintiff spouse and fulfill the conditions of Article 174/2 of the Turkish Civil Code in favor of the plaintiff; while an appropriate amount of moral damages should have been awarded in favor of the plaintiff, taking into account the economic and social conditions of the parties as well as their fault status, rendering a decision in the manner written was not correct and required a reversal.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 24.01.2013 that the appealed judgment be OVERTURNED for the reason shown in point 2 above, and the other parts of the judgment subject to appeal outside the scope of the reversal be AFFIRMED for the reason shown in point 1 above; that the below-written fee be charged to the defendant; that the advance fee be offset; and since 103.50 TL of appeal application fee was received in advance, there is no need for further fees, and the advance appeal fee be returned to the plaintiff who deposited it, with the path for correction of the decision remaining open within 15 days from the notification of this decision.
(T.C. COURT OF CASSATION 2ND CIVIL CHAMBER, Basis No. 2012/14896, Decision No. 2013/1651, Date 24.1.2013)