15.08.2026 12:10
The Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber ruled that a woman's absence from home and not cooking would be considered neglect of marital duties and that the man was justified in filing for divorce. The landmark decision overturned the lower court's dismissal in a case in Bursa.
Although it is not counted as a direct ground for divorce in the laws, the fact that a woman goes out a lot and does not cook grants the man the right to file for divorce. The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled that a woman who is not at home and neglects her marital duties by not cooking is at fault based on these facts, and that in this case, the divorce case filed by the man should also be accepted.
Although 'going out a lot and not cooking' is not considered a direct ground for divorce in the Turkish Civil Code, it is stated that a divorce case can be filed if the common life of the marriage union is fundamentally shaken to an extent that cannot be expected from the parties.
The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which evaluated the appeal application of a divorce case in Bursa, made a landmark decision.
LOCAL COURT FOUND THE WOMAN RIGHTFUL
The couple, who experienced severe incompatibility, filed mutual divorce cases. The court decided to accept the woman's case and reject the man's case on the grounds that the man was fully at fault. The decision, which the man appealed, was also deemed appropriate by the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Bursa Regional Court of Justice.
When the man's lawyer appealed the decision, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stepped in this time. It was appealed by the attorney of the defendant-counter-plaintiff man regarding the determination of fault, the acceptance of the main case, the rejection of the counter-case, and the material and moral damages awarded in favor of the woman.
"NEGLECTED HER DUTIES BY NOT COOKING"
In the decision, where the Court of Cassation pointed out that the woman, who is not at home because she frequently goes out and does not cook, is also at fault, it was stated: "In line with the statements of the witnesses of the defendant-counter-plaintiff man, it has been understood that the woman had ongoing acts of insult and humiliation towards the man within the marriage union, and that she neglected her marital duties by not being at home and not cooking, and that these facts should be attributed to the woman as fault.
"THE MAN IS RIGHTFUL"
According to this situation, the man is rightful in filing a case. The conditions for accepting the man's case have been fulfilled. While the man's divorce case should also have been accepted, the decision to reject it in the written form was not deemed correct and required reversal. The decision was made unanimously that it is not necessary to examine the other appeal objections for now, since it has become necessary to abolish the Regional Court of Justice decision regarding the dismissal of the appeal on the merits against the Family Court decision, to reverse the first instance court decision, and to establish a new judgment regarding both cases and their annexes due to the reason for reversal."