TO CONTACT NOW: 0 541 485 92 48

FAMILY INTERVENTION IN MARRIAGE

In addition to other reasons, it is seen that the intervention of the spouses’ families in the marriage is also effective in the dissolution of the marriage. Especially as a result of Turkish customs, family life and socio-cultural life, there are many marriages that are ended because families are extremely fond of their children, even if their children get married, they try to protect their marriage by interfering with it, and meanwhile, the other spouse is subjected to both verbal and physical violence.

As the spouses arguing due to the intervention of the families moved to the courtrooms, the Supreme Court examined this social reality in its decisions and developed a jurisprudence that the spouse who remained silent against this intervention was defective in the termination of the marriage union, and that the marriage union was shaken for the other spouse in a way that would not allow the continuation of the marriage union. Some of these are given below:

  1. The decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated 04.07.2018, numbered 2016/21181 and Decision 2018/8614;

“From the investigation and the evidence gathered, it is understood that the defendant man did not provide independent housing and remained silent to the family intervention. In this case, there is a conflict between the parties that will shake the common life to its foundation and will not allow the continuation of the union. The plaintiff is right to file a lawsuit in the face of the course of events. Since it is no longer considered legally possible to force the spouses to live together under the circumstances, the rejection of the case with insufficient justification, instead of the decision to divorce, was not found correct.

  1. The decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated 23.01.2013, numbered 2012/15308 and 2013/1490 Decision;

“From the investigation and the evidence gathered, the defendant-plaintiff husband remained silent to his brother’s physical violence and insults to his wife, did not take care of his wife’s needs, did not provide independent housing, and the plaintiff-defendant woman remained silent about her father’s insults to her husband and her family’s intervention in the marriage, and the defendant-defendant in the events that led to the divorce. – it is understood that the plaintiff husband is more seriously flawed. In this case, there is a conflict between the parties that will shake the foundation of the common life and will not allow the continuation of the union. Instead of deciding to accept both cases, the rejection of the cases with insufficient justification was not found to be correct.”

  1. The decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated 22.04.2010, numbered 2009/4635 and Decision 2010/8124;

“According to the collected evidence, it is understood from the investigation that the defendant did not accept the provision of joint housing, and his family remained silent when they insulted the plaintiff woman and her family and dismissed the plaintiff. the plaintiff is right to file a lawsuit. Since it is no longer legally possible to force the spouses to live together under these conditions, the rejection of the case with insufficient justification was not found to be correct instead of the decision to divorce (TMK.art. 166/1). is in the form.

TO CONTACT NOW: 0 541 485 92 48

Özlem Zennup Özkök

Arb. Av. Özlem Zennup Özkök, 2010 yılında Bilkent Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi’nden mezun olmuştur. Bursa Barosu’na kayıtlı avukat ve arabulucudur. Türkiye’nin önde gelen hukuk bürolarında edindiği şirketler hukuku ve birleşme-devralma deneyiminin ardından Bursa’da Özkök Hukuk Bürosu’nu kurmuştur. Aile hukuku, şirketler hukuku ve gayrimenkul uyuşmazlıkları alanlarında çalışmaktadır.

See author's posts