PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING FROM THE COURT OF CASSATION
"LOAFING AROUND" AS GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE
This week, I will try to explain to you, my valued readers, a precedent-setting ruling by the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which is one of the most curious topics in family law, along with examples.
A new one has been added to the family law cases that we have encountered very frequently in recent times. There is an important ruling by the Court of Cassation regarding family law, stating that a spouse who does not work and loafs around during the marital union will be considered at fault in a divorce case.
Evaluating an appeal application for a divorce case, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation accepted the husband's laziness and failure to work as grounds for divorce. The Supreme Court pointed out that the wife seeking refuge with her own family because her husband did not work deeply shook the marital union.
The woman, who claimed that she was subjected to violence by the man she was married to, applied to the Family Court for divorce. The Family Court ruled that the defendant husband was fully at fault in the events leading to the divorce and decided that the parties should be divorced.
“DEEMED HEAVILY AT FAULT”
The defendant husband took the decision to the appellate court. The Regional Court of Justice ruled that some of the faults attributed to the husband could not be proven within the framework of the file, and some were not properly relied upon by the plaintiff woman. The plaintiff woman, who was greatly surprised by the rejection of the case, appealed the decision of the Regional Court of Justice. The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has signed another precedent-setting ruling.
In the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, it was pointed out that the husband had not provided financial support to his family for the last year and a half by wandering around aimlessly. In the decision taken unanimously, it was reminded that the husband was heavily at fault for not working. The decision included the following statements;
"It is understood that the defendant husband has not worked for the last 1.5 years of the marriage, that he has been wandering around, that during this period the plaintiff woman was looked after by her own mother, that the defendant husband neglected his union obligations in this way, and that this matter is proven by witness statements.
In the face of this situation, there is a conflict between the parties that is sufficient to shake the common life to its foundation and of a nature that does not allow the continuation of the union, and this is proven. In light of the flow of events, the plaintiff woman is justified in filing for divorce. Since it is no longer considered legally possible to force the spouses to live together under these conditions, it was not correct to decide to reject the case with insufficient justification instead of deciding for divorce by accepting the case, and this necessitated a reversal."