15.02.2025 10:30
The Court of Cassation made an important decision regarding spouses on the verge of divorce. The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated, "It is not possible to qualify the continued cohabitation of the parties in the same house for a while after the divorce case has been filed as a reconciliation."
According to the information obtained from the Case Law Bulletin Application, the attorney representing the plaintiff woman, who was learned to be a cancer patient in the litigation that extended to the Court of Cassation's 2nd Civil Chamber due to the divorce case between the parties, summarized in the petition that the defendant did not have a regular job, applied economic violence, threatened and insulted, was excessively jealous, did not want the plaintiff's family to come to the shared residence, and did not treat her daughter from her first marriage well, requesting the divorce of the parties and the custody to be granted to the mother. The defendant did not respond to the lawsuit.
THE FIRST INSTANCE COURT REJECTED THE DIVORCE CASE
The First Instance Court decided to reject the case on the grounds that the parties had lived together for a long time while the case was ongoing, and that the parties had mutually forgiven each other in this situation. The attorney representing the plaintiff woman filed an appeal, stating that there was no situation of forgiveness and that this situation was not mentioned in the parties' statements, within the time limit against the decision of the First Instance Court.
THE REGIONAL COURT OF APPEAL REJECTED THE APPEAL REQUEST
The Regional Court of Appeal's 2nd Civil Chamber decided to reject the appeal on the grounds that the reasons for the rejection of the case were in accordance with the procedure and the law. Against this decision of the Regional Court of Appeal, an appeal request was made by reiterating the reasons for the appeal within the time limit.
THE COURT OF CASSATION CONSIDERED LIVING IN THE SAME HOUSE AS A NECESSITY
As a result of the examination of the divorce file, the Court of Cassation's 2nd Civil Chamber overturned the ruling related to the file.
The Court of Cassation's 2nd Civil Chamber stated in the overturning decision: "From the collected evidence and the statements of the witnesses, it is understood that the plaintiff woman filed the lawsuit because she was undergoing cancer treatment and was not in a position to take care of her children, and that after the lawsuit was filed, the parties lived together for a while longer, and that this situation arose out of necessity, and it is not possible to qualify this situation as forgiveness. In this case, the Court should have evaluated all evidence regarding whether the conditions for acceptance of the case were met, instead of deciding to reject the case on the grounds that the plaintiff woman forgave the defendant man or at least tolerated him, which is contrary to the procedure and the law and necessitated the overturning."
Evaluating the decision, Istanbul Bar Association member Attorney Fatih Karamercan stated: "For the behaviors of spouses to be qualified as forgiveness while the divorce proceedings are ongoing, these behaviors must occur freely by the spouses' will. If the behavior claimed to be forgiveness arises from necessity in any way, it is no longer possible to qualify this behavior as forgiveness and to reject the divorce case. In summary, whether the behavior claimed to be forgiveness is performed by the spouse's free will affects the legal consequence of forgiveness. The decision of the Court of Cassation's 2nd Civil Chamber is legally sound and is consistent with the decision of the Court of Cassation's General Assembly dated March 1, 2023, which states that 'The fact that spouses come together for the sake of their children or out of necessity does not imply that a common life has been reestablished.'