21.06.2026 10:00
The Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber found the husband, who neglected his wife and home by constantly spending time at the coffeehouse, to be at serious fault in the divorce. The high court ruled that the man must pay material and moral damages to his wife due to his behavior that caused the disruption of family unity.
The Court of Cassation's 2nd Civil Chamber, evaluating an appeal in a divorce case, found the husband who constantly spent time with his friends at the coffeehouse, neglecting his home, to be gravely at fault. The high court emphasized that leaving the spouse alone in social settings and on special occasions while consistently spending time at the coffeehouse leads to the fundamental disruption of the family union, and ruled that the husband, deemed gravely at fault, must pay compensation to the wife.
COURT FOUND HUSBAND GRAVELY AT FAULT
Bad news came from the Court of Cassation for regulars who head to the coffeehouse early in the morning, especially on days off. A couple experiencing ongoing discord applied to the Family Court and filed mutual divorce cases. The plaintiff and counter-defendant wife alleged that her husband constantly forced her to go to her mother's house, used violence when she refused, seriously neglected his home by always spending time with friends at the coffeehouse, and failed to meet any household needs. The plaintiff wife, stating that she covered electricity, natural gas, clothing, and out-of-town travel expenses, recounted that her husband said, 'If you didn't have a salary, I wouldn't have married you,' and claimed she was subjected to insults throughout the marriage, psychological violence, and constant psychological abuse such as calling her 'bald, thick-legged, how did I take this ugly, was I blind?' due to her hair loss.
WILL PAY 100,000 TL COMPENSATION
The acceptance of the case, the divorce of the parties, and a decision for 50,000 TL in material and 50,000 TL in moral compensation were requested.
While residents of Bursa evaluated the decision with varying opinions, it was reminded that the Court of Cassation's ruling will set a precedent for future decisions.