```html
Murat B, a businessman in Ankara, filed for divorce from his wife Türkan B, whom he married 2 years ago. Murat B presented the reasons for divorce, stating that his wife restricted the use of water and electricity at home, did not turn on the heating, brought food from home when they went to the cinema, took back the tip he left for the waiter at the restaurant, and performed magic on him with amulets he found in his bed and clothes.
WOMAN FOUND TO BE HEAVILY AT FAULT
In the case heard at the 15th Family Court of Ankara, Türkan B, who denied the accusations, claimed that her husband spent excessively. The court, evaluating bank account statements, photos of the amulets submitted to the file, and witness statements, concluded that Türkan B was excessively stingy and that she had performed magic, ruling that she was heavily at fault.
The court decided to grant the couple's divorce, concluding that the plaintiff spouse had no fault since Türkan B could not prove her husband's claim of excessive spending.
SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE DECISION
Türkan B appealed the decision through her lawyer. The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Appeals ruled that the defendant woman was completely at fault and that there was no inaccuracy in the decision, rejecting the appeal against the lawful and procedural ruling.
This time, the defendant woman appealed to the Supreme Court. In her appeal, Türkan B claimed that her husband's allegations did not reflect the truth, that he spent excessively, and that the fault determination was incorrect. The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that Türkan B had inflicted economic violence on Murat B by behaving excessively stingy and that she had made the marriage unbearable by performing magic. The decision emphasized that performing magic is a behavior that undermines trust between spouses, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Regional Court of Appeals.
'I STARTED TO FIND AMULETS IN MY PILLOW'
Murat B expressed that he was subjected to his wife's psychological and economic violence throughout their marriage and that this had disturbed his psychology. He described his experiences as follows:
"After a while of getting married, her stinginess emerged. This started to bother me. She began to collect the tips I left on the table. We no longer reached a comfortable warmth at home. She would turn off the heating and electricity. Besides, when we went to the cinema, she would take food out of her pocket. She wouldn't let me buy anything there. Additionally, there was a magic incident. I started to find a lot of strange things in my pillow. I am not a person who believes in such things; but when I researched, I learned that such things had happened. I even went to a teacher afterward. We started to deal with these magic removal issues. I still carry an amulet in my wallet."
'PERFORMING MAGIC IS A TRUST-UNDERMINING BEHAVIOR'
Murat B's lawyer, Senem Yılmazel, stated that despite her client covering all household expenses, he was subjected to serious economic violence. Yılmazel said, "She was collecting tips, and she practically prohibited him from buying popcorn or cola when they went to the cinema. She would take out cola, nuts, and popcorn from her bag, and they would have serious arguments about this. Later, my client decided to get a divorce. In the last months, while my client was sleeping, he found an amulet in his pillow. Upon this, he expressed that he did not really believe in such things. He went to a teacher and discovered that he had been subjected to magic. He then had this magic removed. Although he said he did not believe it, he expressed that he felt better psychologically and thus resorted to such a path. Unfortunately, even after the divorce decision was finalized, he still carries this amulet with him. According to the Supreme Court's decisions, there is no need for this magic to have an effect. The act of performing magic itself is a trust-undermining behavior. The decision is final," she stated.
```
|