16.07.2026 09:51
The Court of Cassation found a husband who slept and spent time at the mosque to avoid caring for his sick wife and neglected her, to be severely at fault for emotional abuse under the Turkish Civil Code. After the Family Court rejected the divorce request, the Court of Cassation overturned the decision, ruling that the man was at fault.
The Supreme Court evaluated the husband who slept and stayed in a mosque to avoid caring for his sick wife and neglected her, under the Turkish Civil Code's article on "fundamental disruption of the marriage union and emotional violence," and found him severely at fault.
"I STAYED IN THE MOSQUE BECAUSE SHE KICKED ME OUT OF THE HOUSE"
The elderly man who applied to the Family Court claimed that his wife treated him with contempt, humiliated him, insulted him, kicked him out of the house, and restricted his economic freedom by not giving him his retirement pension card.
Stating that he stayed on the streets for a long time after being kicked out of the house, took shelter in the mosque to protect himself from the cold, and slept there at night, he filed a divorce case. He requested alimony, poverty alimony, and material and moral compensation.
"SHE SAW MY ILLNESS AS A FAULT"
The defendant woman, testifying in court, stated that the allegations were unfounded, that the plaintiff did not fulfill his marital duties, that she could not care for her husband due to health issues, and that she asked him to leave the house and go to their daughter's place.
She claimed that when she began losing her sight due to diabetes, her husband did not support her; her brother took care of her during hospital and treatment processes; her daughter and son-in-law supported her; and the plaintiff saw her illness as a fault.
She noted that he humiliated and belittled her, and that the plaintiff occasionally stayed at a tea kiosk he ran in the mosque because he wanted to escape from her illness. She requested that the plaintiff's claims for material and moral compensation be rejected.
HE FILED THE CASE AND WAS FOUND AT FAULT
The Family Court noted that living separately cannot be attributed as a fault to the defendant in a divorce case. Upon examining the defendant's witness statements, it was stated that the plaintiff did not care for the defendant or attend to her health issues. Based on the grounds that the at-fault party was the plaintiff and that the defendant could not prove her faults, the court ruled to dismiss the case.
It was decided that the alimony awarded in favor of the defendant would continue until the decision became final and would be lifted when the decision was finalized.
The husband, whose objection was rejected by the Regional Court of Appeal, appealed the decision. The Supreme Court 2nd Civil Chamber regarded the failure to care for the sick wife as a ground for divorce and upheld the Family Court's ruling.