11.07.2026 14:30
The Court of Cassation set a precedent by ruling that a husband who told his wife 'your cooking is poisonous' was severely at fault, while a wife who said 'get out, you senile' was found to be slightly at fault in a divorce case.
The couple, who had been experiencing severe incompatibility for some time, applied to the Family Court and filed a mutual divorce lawsuit. The plaintiff-counter-defendant husband claimed that after the birth of their common child, the woman started behaving badly, constantly insulted him, humiliated him, tormented him, began addressing him as "old man," called him "filth, senile," and refused to give him food.
WOMAN LOCKED THE REFRIGERATOR
The plaintiff-counter-defendant husband stated that his wife locked the refrigerator with a padlock, forcing him to buy a second refrigerator. He asserted that she obtained a restraining order with baseless complaints and demanded a divorce, custody of the common child, and 50,000 TL in material and 50,000 TL in moral compensation.
HUSBAND INSULTED HER COOKING
The defendant-counter-plaintiff woman also rejected the allegations, noting that the husband disrespected her daughters from her previous marriage, insulted them, and did not even attend the weddings of the two married daughters. She stated that he disliked her cooking, humiliating her by saying, "you are ignorant, what do you know, look at yourself, thief, shameless, your food is poisonous," and requested the dismissal of the main lawsuit, acceptance of the counterclaim, custody of the common child to the mother, monthly alimony of 1,500 TL for the child and 1,500 TL for the woman's poverty, along with 50 TL in material and 50,000 TL in moral compensation.
MUTUAL INSULTS
After hearing both parties, the Family Court noted that the woman insulted and humiliated the man by saying, "I don't want you, get lost, you are filthy, senile, old man," while the man said, "Your food is terrible, your food is poisonous, you are ignorant, what do you know, look at yourself, thief, shameless."
HUSBAND FOUND AT GRAVE FAULT
The Court of Cassation considered the husband, who disliked the food but did not do the household grocery shopping, to be at grave fault compared to the woman. It ruled for the divorce, custody of the common child to the father, establishment of personal relations between the mother and the child, monthly alimony of 750 TL for the woman, and 20,000 TL in material and 15,000 TL in moral compensation for the woman.
BOTH THE APPEAL AND THE COURT OF CASSATION UPHELD THE DECISION
The husband appealed the decision. The Regional Court of Appeals found that the husband, who insulted and did not fully manage the household grocery shopping, was correctly identified as being at grave fault while the woman was at minor fault, and rejected the objection, stating that under these conditions, the continuation of the marriage could not be expected. When the husband's attorney appealed, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stepped in and upheld the decision.