Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, kad\u0131n\u0131n; kocas\u0131na oranla daha fazla maa\u015f almas\u0131 durumunda bile kad\u0131n lehine tedbir nafakas\u0131 verilmesi gerekti\u011fine karar verdi. Hukuk\u00e7ular, karar\u0131n hakkaniyet kurallar\u0131na uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ne s\u00fcrd\u00fc.<\/b><\/p>\n
\u0130\u00e7tihat B\u00fclteni\u2019nden edinilen bilgiye g\u00f6re; Aile Mahkemesi\u2019ne ba\u015fvuran C.U. isimli kad\u0131n, e\u015finin s\u00fcrekli hakaretine maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00fcrekli yalan s\u00f6yledi\u011fini, \u015fiddet uygulad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, birlik g\u00f6revlerini yerine getirmedi\u011fini, sadakatsiz davrand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u0131k s\u0131k i\u015f de\u011fi\u015ftirmek suretiyle i\u015finde sebat etmedi\u011fini iddia etti.<\/p>\n
Evin ihtiya\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek taraflar\u0131n bo\u015fanmalar\u0131na, vel\u00e2yetin anneye verilmesine, \u00e7ocuk yarar\u0131na 1.000 TL tedbir-i\u015ftirak nafakas\u0131 ile davac\u0131 yarar\u0131na 1.000 TL tedbir-yoksulluk nafakas\u0131 ve 100 bin TL maddi, 100 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesini talep etti.<\/p>\n
\u2018E\u015e\u0130M S\u0130N\u0130R HASTASI\u2019 SAVUNMASI<\/strong><\/p>\n Daval\u0131 koca E.U. ise t\u00fcm iddialar\u0131 ink\u00e2rla, davac\u0131n\u0131n hakl\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kmak ad\u0131na kendisine y\u00f6nelik ger\u00e7ek d\u0131\u015f\u0131 iddialarda bulundu\u011funu, iddia edilenin aksine evlilik birli\u011finden kaynaklanan t\u00fcm g\u00f6revlerini eksiksiz yerine getirdi\u011fi h\u00e2lde davac\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revlerini yerine getirmedi\u011fini \u00f6ne s\u00fcrd\u00fc.<\/p>\n Daval\u0131 koca; davac\u0131n\u0131n sinir hastas\u0131 oldu\u011funu, psikolojik tedavi g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, e\u015fine hakaret etti\u011fini, kablo ile bo\u011fmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yaralamaya uygun e\u015fyalarla daval\u0131ya sald\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek taraflar\u0131n bo\u015fanmalar\u0131na, vel\u00e2yetin kendisine verilmesine, \u00e7ocuk yarar\u0131na 500 TL tedbir-i\u015ftirak nafakas\u0131 ile daval\u0131 yarar\u0131na 25 bin TL maddi, 25 bin TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesini talep etti.<\/p>\n \u201cS\u00dcREKL\u0130L\u0130K G\u00d6STER\u0130R DERECEDE \u015e\u0130DDET\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Mahkeme, zaman i\u00e7erisinde taraflar aras\u0131nda s\u00fcreklilik g\u00f6sterir derece ve \u015fiddette, kavga, tart\u0131\u015fma, huzursuzluk ve problemlerin ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131, erke\u011fin e\u015fini ba\u015fkalar\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131nda azarlad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u201c\u00e7\u0131k d\u0131\u015far\u0131\u201d diyerek ba\u011f\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131, savurgan davran\u0131\u015flarda bulundu\u011fu, fiziksel \u015fiddet uygulad\u0131\u011f\u0131, k\u00fcf\u00fcr etti\u011fi, misafirlere olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi gibi davranmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, maddi-manevi birlik g\u00f6revlerini yerine getirmedi\u011fine de dikkat \u00e7ekti.<\/p>\n Mahkeme karar\u0131nda; kad\u0131n\u0131n da e\u015fine tart\u0131\u015fma an\u0131nda \u201c\u015ferefsizsin, bilmem ne \u00e7ocu\u011fusun, yalanc\u0131, sen adam m\u0131s\u0131n, adam olsan b\u00f6yle yapard\u0131n, yine beceremedin, ka\u00e7 kuru\u015fluk adams\u0131n\u201d \u015feklinde s\u00f6zler s\u00f6yledi\u011fi, e\u015fyalar\u0131 f\u0131rlatt\u0131\u011f\u0131, e\u015fini \u00e7imdikledi\u011fine vurgu yap\u0131ld\u0131.<\/p>\n \u201cERKEK A\u011eIR, KADIN AZ KUSURLU\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki evlilik birli\u011finin temelinden sars\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bo\u015fanmaya sebep olan olaylarda erke\u011fin a\u011f\u0131r, kad\u0131n\u0131n az kusurlu oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, taraflar\u0131n bo\u015fanmalar\u0131na, vel\u00e2yetin anneye verilmesine, \u00e7ocuk yarar\u0131na 300 TL tedbir-600 TL i\u015ftirak, kad\u0131n yarar\u0131na 400 TL tedbir nafakas\u0131 ile 35 bin TL maddi, 15 bin TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine, s\u00fcrekli ve d\u00fczenli geliri olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kad\u0131n\u0131n yoksulluk nafaka talebinin reddine karar verdi.<\/p>\n \u0130K\u0130 TARAF DA KARARI TEMY\u0130Z ETT\u0130<\/strong><\/p>\n Karar\u0131 her iki taraf avukat\u0131 da temyiz edince devreye giren Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi, davac\u0131 kad\u0131n\u0131n kamu \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve kocas\u0131na oranla daha \u00e7ok maa\u015f ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle tedbir nafakas\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funa dikkat \u00e7ekti. Yeniden yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonras\u0131 Aile Mahkemesi, ilk karar\u0131nda direndi. Taraflar karar\u0131 temyiz edince devreye bu kez Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu girdi.<\/p>\n EMSAL N\u0130TEL\u0130KTE KARAR<\/strong><\/p>\n Emsal nitelikte bir karara imza atan Kurul; taraflar\u0131n ekonomik ve sosyal durum ara\u015ft\u0131rma tutana\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re kad\u0131n\u0131n kurum avukat\u0131 olarak, erke\u011fin ise \u00f6zel sekt\u00f6rde daha maa\u015fla \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131na dikkat \u00e7ekti.<\/p>\n Kararda \u015f\u00f6yle denildi: \u201cE\u015fler, her ne kadar bo\u015fanma a\u015famas\u0131nda da olsalar; kanundan do\u011fan bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri gere\u011fi devam eden zorunlu giderlere g\u00fc\u00e7leri oran\u0131nda emek ve mal varl\u0131klar\u0131 ile kat\u0131lmak zorundad\u0131rlar. Taraflar\u0131n gelirinin bulunmas\u0131 TMK’n\u0131n 169. maddesine dayal\u0131 tedbir nafakas\u0131 h\u00fckmedilmesine engel de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n Bu nedenle eldeki davada her ne kadar taraflar\u0131n gelir durumlar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda kad\u0131n\u0131n erke\u011fe oranla daha fazla maa\u015f ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclse de, bu durum ancak di\u011fer e\u015fin birlik giderlerine kat\u0131lmadaki oran\u0131n\u0131 belirlemede bir \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fc olarak de\u011ferlendirilebilece\u011finden direnme karar\u0131 yerindedir.<\/p>\n Direnme uygun olup, h\u00fckmedilen tedbir nafakas\u0131n\u0131n miktar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi i\u00e7in dosyan\u0131n Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019ne g\u00f6nderilmesine oy \u00e7oklu\u011fu ile karar verilmi\u015ftir\u201d denildi.<\/p>\n \u201cKARAR HAKKAN\u0130YETL\u0130 DE\u011e\u0130L\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Karar\u0131 de\u011ferlendiren \u0130stanbul Barosu \u00fcyesi Avukat Fatih Karamercan \u015funlar\u0131 s\u00f6yledi: \u201c743 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Kanunu Medenisi’nin 152. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131nda, \u2018Koca, birli\u011fin reisidir\u2019 h\u00fckm\u00fc mevcuttu.<\/p>\n 01.01.2002 y\u0131l\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nda s\u00f6z konusu h\u00fck\u00fcm kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 186. maddesi ile e\u015flerin; oturacaklar\u0131 konutu birlikte se\u00e7ecekleri, birli\u011fi beraberce y\u00f6netecekleri ve birli\u011fin giderlerine g\u00fc\u00e7leri oran\u0131nda emek ve malvarl\u0131klar\u0131 ile kat\u0131lacaklar\u0131 h\u00fckme ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n Bu nedenle Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi uygulamas\u0131n\u0131 ge\u00e7ersiz sayan 2022 tarihli Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu karar\u0131na kat\u0131lmak, hem T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu h\u00fck\u00fcmleri hem de hakkaniyet gere\u011fi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Ayr\u0131ca, Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun 2018 tarihli \u201ce\u015flerin ekonomik g\u00fc\u00e7leri birbirine yak\u0131n ise ge\u00e7ici tedbir nafakas\u0131 verilmeyebilir\u201d \u015feklinde verilmi\u015f karar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funu da belirtmek isterim.\u201d (\u0130HA) \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, kad\u0131n\u0131n; kocas\u0131na oranla daha fazla maa\u015f almas\u0131 durumunda bile kad\u0131n lehine tedbir nafakas\u0131 verilmesi gerekti\u011fine …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2126,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[658,296,209,580,657],"class_list":["post-2125","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-gundem","tag-esin","tag-hukuk","tag-kadin","tag-karar","tag-yargitay"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2125","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2125"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2125\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2127,"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2125\/revisions\/2127"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2126"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2125"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2125"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2125"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
<\/strong><\/p>\n