[ad_1]
The young couple, who had been in conflict for a time, applied to the Family Court and filed for mutual divorce. The plaintiff against the defendant; He claimed that his wife’s family intervened in the marriage, did not want him to be reunited with his family, used physical violence and threatened him. The plaintiff’s counter-accused husband alleged: “My wife did not want to meet with my mother, that is, her mother-in-law.” The Family Court, accepting that the plaintiff-defendant man incurred a serious fault in the events that led to the termination of the marriage, decided that the parties would divorce with the acceptance of the mutual divorce cases, the rejection of the requests for compensation of the man and custody of the shared child would be left to the mother. Measures were decided for the common benefit of the children and alimony for participation, compensation for the benefit of the defendant-plaintiff.
The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Regional Court of Justice, which was activated when the parties requested an appeal, drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff-accused man did not love the woman’s family and entered sexual sites. She emphasized that the defendant-plaintiff woman did not want to meet with her husband’s family, did not fulfill union duties and did not bring her husband to the common home in the last incident. Circle; Declaring that the parties were equally at fault in these events that led to the divorce, the defendant-plaintiff decided to reject all appeals from the plaintiff and the plaintiff-defendant to determine guilt and the claim for appeal in terms of compensation. When the verdict was appealed by the party’s lawyers, this time the Second Legal Department of the Court of Cassation intervened.
In the decision of the Supreme Court; The husband who forced his wife to meet her mother and entered sexual content sites was claimed to have serious flaws. In the decision; “While it must be accepted that the plaintiff-defendant is grossly at fault, the written acceptance that the parties are equally at fault was not considered correct. The man suffers from serious defects in the facts that cause the shaking of the marital union, and these faulty behaviors attributed to the man also constitute an attack on the personality rights of the woman. The woman will be deprived of financial support from her spouse as a result of the divorce. In that case, while it is necessary to decide on material and moral compensation for the benefit of the woman, taking into account the social and economic conditions of the parties, the weight of the act that is the basis of compensation and the rules of equity, the decision to reject in writing the request for material and non-pecuniary compensation as a consequence of the illegal determination was not considered correct and necessary to revoke it. It was resolved to distort the determination of defect and the request for pecuniary and immaterial compensation of the defendant-plaintiff and approve the other parts of the decision subject to appeal, which are not in the scope of the revocation.
