COURT OF CASSATION RULING CONCERNING COUPLES PLANNING TO MARRY
A PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING FROM THE COURT OF CASSATION CONCERNING NEWLYWED COUPLES
A PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING
This week, I will attempt to explain, with examples, a precedent-setting ruling by the Court of Cassation that has become one of the most intriguing cases in family law.
A very important precedent-setting ruling has emerged from the Court of Cassation that concerns millions of couples about to get married. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation has signed off on a precedent-setting ruling concerning couples who have disputes during their wedding. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers ruled that the cancellation of a wedding due to a dispute over who would cover the wedding expenses does not constitute an "attack on the woman's personal rights."
In the lawsuit petition, the plaintiff husband claimed that the parties were married on 24.05.2017, that the defendant stated after the civil marriage ceremony that she was not a virgin, that the plaintiff husband was surprised by this event, that he shared the events with his father and father-in-law, that a dispute occurred between the plaintiff's father and the father-in-law, that the defendant and her family insulted the plaintiff and his family, and that the plaintiff was deceived and suffered materially and morally due to these events, requesting the cancellation of their marriage.
The defendant woman, in response to the lawsuit petition, denied all the plaintiff's allegations, claiming that she had told the plaintiff everything about her past before the marriage, that the plaintiff had accepted this situation with understanding, that a dispute occurred between the families after the marriage ceremony due to wedding expenses, that the plaintiff husband then told the defendant the next day that this marriage would not work out and made evaluations regarding a divorce, and that the continuation of the marital union became impossible due to the plaintiff's subsequent attitudes and behaviors and especially his accusations towards the defendant wife, requesting the rejection of the main lawsuit, the acceptance of the counterclaim and the divorce of the parties, the payment of 50,000 TL in pecuniary and 50,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages in favor of her client, the return of the goods presented in the attachment of the petition and not returned by the plaintiff in kind, and in case the return in kind is not possible, the collection of a total of 10,772 TL for their value.
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE REJECTED THE DEFENDANT WOMAN'S DEMANDS
The court of first instance decided that the spouses were married on 24.05.2017, the wedding was postponed to a later date, in the meantime the defendant woman explained to her husband that she was not a virgin due to a sexual relationship she had before this marriage, the plaintiff husband decided not to hold the wedding upon this explanation, and as such, the husband, from whom private information regarding the marriage was kept, had no legal or personal benefit in continuing the marriage, and that the woman was entirely responsible for this result; therefore, it rejected the woman's counter-divorce case, accepted the husband's main case and ruled for the divorce of the parties pursuant to Article 166/1 of the TMK (Turkish Civil Code), ordered the payment of 5,000 TL in pecuniary and 5,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages in favor of the husband, rejected the husband's claim for jewelry/gold, and decided that there was no need to issue a ruling regarding the woman's household goods claim.
The plaintiff woman appealed the decision of the court of first instance.
The Regional Court of Justice, with its decision dated 03.07.2020, decided to accept the appeal request, to overturn the court of first instance's decision because it did not contain grounds regarding which party's witness statements were given superiority, and to send the file back to the court of first instance so that a decision could be made in a reasoned manner suitable for judicial review, considering that the divorce decision given in the main case had become final and that an evaluation should be made according to the justification status in the counterclaim, and also by establishing a provision regarding the plaintiff-counter-defendant's request for the cancellation of the marriage; it decided that there was no need to examine other grounds of appeal regarding the merits at this stage.
The court of first instance, which reconsidered the file, decided with its decision dated 29.09.2020 to reject the husband's request for the cancellation of the marriage and his claim for jewelry, that there was no need to make a decision on the divorce of the parties as the provision regarding the divorce of the parties had become final, excluding the content of the appeal, and ordered the payment of 5,000 TL in pecuniary and 5,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages in favor of the husband on the grounds that the woman, who withheld private information about the marriage from her spouse, was fully at fault in the events that caused the divorce.
The parties filed an appeal against the aforementioned decision of the court of first instance within the legal time limit.
THE REGIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE RULED FOR COMPENSATION IN FAVOR OF THE WOMAN
The Regional Court of Justice, according to the content of the file, decided that a dispute occurred between the families of the parties after the marriage ceremony regarding who would cover the wedding expenses, that after this event, the husband did not want to hold the wedding even though he had accepted that his wife was not a virgin, that there was no faulty behavior originating from the woman in the events that caused the divorce, that the husband was fully at fault in the events that caused the divorce, that although the acceptance of the husband's divorce case was not correct, it was sufficient to point out the error because the divorce decision became final without being appealed, that the divorce request in the woman's counterclaim became moot because the divorce decision given in the main case became final, that the plaintiff woman was in the right in the counterclaim when an examination was made according to the justification status of the case, and therefore, it decided to award 10,000 TL in pecuniary and 5,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages in favor of the woman on the grounds that litigation expenses and attorney fees should be awarded in her favor.