Supreme Court sex decision: Husband found to be entirely at fault

11:26 13.11.2020(Updated 11:29 13.11.2020) Shorten the URL

https://cdntr1.img.sputniknews.com/img/103722/44/1037224453_0:0:1200:675_1200x675_80_0_0_928f18002f0e23f0f0bb910f73a6e42c.jpg

https://tr.sputniknews.com/turkiye/202011131043216771-yargitaydan-cinsel-iliski-karari-koca-tam-kusurlu-sayildi/

The Supreme Court ruled that the husband who did not have sexual relations with his wife, despite the absence of evidence, was “completely at fault.”

According to the report by Muhammed Uzun from the Sabah newspaper, the Supreme Court has made a decision that could set a precedent in a divorce case.

Claiming that he did not have enough sexual relations with his wife in Kahramanmaraş, husband HY filed for divorce. Four days later, his wife filed for divorce against EY.

The court, which divorced the couple for six months, rejected the couple’s claims for compensation, which it deemed “equally flawed.” However, as EY was unable to receive alimony and compensation, HY also appealed the file on moral grounds.

The Supreme Court, which found the woman to be right, ruled that the husband who did not have sex with his wife despite the absence of evidence had “total flaws” and overturned the decision. With the decision made, a man who does not have sex with his wife can be considered “flawed” in divorce cases.

‘If there is no obstacle to establishing a relationship, the man must be accepted as guilty’

The following details were included in the decision, which interpreted not having sex as an ‘attack on personal rights’:

• In the absence of physical obstacles to men and women having sex in a healthy sexual relationship, it must be accepted that the man is at fault.
• It is clear from the research and evidence collected that the parties were unable to establish healthy sexual relationships during their marriage.
• In women, no physiological or psychological alterations were found that prevented sexual relations. There is no evidence that women avoid sexual intercourse. In the absence of physical barriers for both parties to engage in sexual intercourse, the accused-counter-plaintiff must be held at fault.
• The parties’ erroneous determination and the denial of the plaintiff and defendant’s claims for compensation in this erroneous determination is contrary to procedure and law and requires revocation.