09.11.2026 17:02
The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled that a woman’s concealment of her previous marriage from her spouse should be considered fault in a divorce case. Although the Chamber assessed the woman’s continuing to conceal the situation after marriage as “trust-damaging behavior,” it unanimously upheld the appellate court’s decision that, when all faults of the parties were considered together, the man was more seriously at fault.
The Court of Cassation has issued a striking ruling in a divorce case heard in the Gölbaşı district of Ankara regarding the concealment of a previous marriage from one’s spouse.
A MUTUAL DIVORCE CASE WAS FILED
In Gölbaşı, a couple filed for divorce against each other. In the case heard at the Gölbaşı Family Court, it also came to light that the woman had been married before and had concealed this situation from her spouse. The file was taken to the Court of Cassation after appellate review.
“CONFIDENCE-SHAKING BEHAVIOR”
The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which examined the file, stated that failure to inform the spouse of a previous marriage before marriage could be a ground for annulment of the marriage. The Chamber noted that it was understood from witness statements that the woman continued to conceal this situation after marriage as well.
In the ruling, the following statements were included: “Although the woman’s failure to share and inform her spouse about her first marriage before marriage is a ground for relative nullity, it is understood from the statements of the male witness heard that the woman continued to conceal and not share this situation after marriage as well, that in this way the woman engaged in behavior that shook confidence toward her spouse, and that this fact should also be attributed to the woman as fault.”
THE PARTY WITH THE GREATER FAULT IS AGAIN THE MAN
While the Court of Cassation evaluated the woman’s concealment of her previous marriage as fault, it unanimously upheld the appellate court’s decision that, when the parties’ other faults were considered together, the man was more severely at fault.