PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING FROM THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING AN UNFAITHFUL SPOUSE
PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING FROM THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING AN UNFAITHFUL SPOUSE
In this week's column, I will attempt to explain to you, my dear readers, a ruling by the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, which is considered a precedent-setting decision and one of the most frequently asked-about topics in family law, along with examples.
A new case has been added to the family law matters that we have been encountering very frequently recently. Regarding family law and specifically within the marital union, the Supreme Court 2nd Civil Chamber has found a woman who made phone calls at late and irregular hours and spoke with another man to be heavily at fault in a divorce. In the ruling of the 2nd Civil Chamber, while the woman's behavior was accepted as infidelity, the husband's certain acts of insult and threat were accepted as a reaction to the wife's act of infidelity.
The parties, living in Kütahya, had been experiencing marital discord for some time. The plaintiff husband filed for divorce, claiming that his wife made phone calls at late and irregular hours and messaged another man, while the defendant wife filed a counter-divorce case, alleging that her husband had insulted and threatened her. The local court, having heard the parties, found the defendant woman heavily at fault. The court ruled for the acceptance of both parties' cases, their divorce, and the granting of custody of the joint children to the mother.
While the local court decided on precautionary and child support payments for the benefit of the children and compensation for the plaintiff husband, it rejected the defendant wife's compensation claim. After the local court's decision was challenged, the file was sent to the appellate court. The appellate court increased the child support payments and, stating that the defendant wife was heavily at fault, ruled in favor of compensation for the plaintiff husband. An appeal was filed regarding the appellate court's decision. After the appeal petition, the file was sent to the Supreme Court 2nd Civil Chamber.
THE WOMAN'S BEHAVIOR MUST BE ACCEPTED AS INFIDELITY
In the chamber's decision, which emphasized that the woman messaged another man late at night, it was pointed out that when the woman's phone records—showing phone calls made at late and irregular hours—are evaluated together with the content of the messages she admitted to sending to another man, it is clear that the woman's behavior exceeded the dimension of undermining trust and should be accepted as infidelity.
The decision underscored that the husband's certain acts of insult and threat were understood to be a reaction to the woman's act of infidelity. In the chamber's ruling, which concluded that the wife was heavily at fault compared to the husband in the events leading to the divorce, it was stated that finding the husband heavily at fault was not appropriate and that this required the decision to be overturned.
WOMAN FOUND HEAVILY AT FAULT
In the decision, it was noted that although the local court had found the husband heavily at fault and awarded material and moral compensation to the wife, the wife was actually more heavily at fault than the husband. The following statements were included in the ruling:
"Given that it is understood the husband is not heavily at fault, the conditions of Article 174/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code have not been met. While the woman's requests for material and moral compensation should have been rejected, the decision made as written was not seen as correct and required reversal. The woman is heavily at fault in the events causing the divorce.
The faulty behaviors that occurred also constitute an attack on the husband's personal rights. Considering the economic and social status of the parties, the severity of the fault, and the rules of equity, material and moral compensation should have been awarded in favor of the husband, and the rejection of the husband's compensation claims as written was not correct and required reversal. The reversal of the decision was ruled unanimously.”