25.05.2025 17:20
The Court of Cassation's 2nd Civil Chamber upheld the decision made by the first-instance courts, which found the husband at fault for not knowing his wife's workplace address, behaving indifferently, and not responding to his wife's family's phone calls. The court ruled that he must pay a monthly alimony of 2,000 Turkish Lira and 75,000 Turkish Lira in compensation in the divorce case.
A woman living in Antalya filed for divorce, stating that her husband showed no interest in her and their child, that they slept in separate beds, that he went on trips without informing her, that he blocked her on social media, that her family’s calls were not answered, and that she was ostracized and insulted by her husband's family. The defendant husband did not even respond to the lawsuit, despite the fact that the lawsuit petition was duly served to him.
FOUND GUILTY OF SERIOUS FAULT
The Antalya 8th Family Court, which conducted the trial, found the man at fault for behaving so indifferently that he did not even know the location of his wife's workplace and for severing ties with his wife and her family by not even answering their calls.
ALIMONY AND COMPENSATION DECISION
The court, which determined that the "marital union has been fundamentally shaken," ruled for the parties to divorce, granted custody of the child to the mother, ordered the man to pay a monthly precautionary alimony of 1000 lira for the benefit of the child and 1000 lira for the benefit of the woman, and also ordered him to pay 20,000 lira in material compensation to the woman.
APPEAL COURT FOUND COMPENSATION INSUFFICIENT
Upon the appeal regarding the decision, the Antalya Regional Court of Justice 2nd Civil Chamber found the local court's decision to be lawful but decided to increase the material compensation to 75,000 lira to be paid to the woman.
SUPREME COURT REJECTED THE APPEAL REQUEST
Following the man's appeal, the case was brought to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court 2nd Civil Chamber determined that the decision made by the first instance courts was in accordance with procedure and law. The chamber rejected the defendant husband's appeal request and decided to uphold the ruling.