In a divorce case, the Court of Cassation ruled that extreme stinginess constitutes a fault that shakes the marital union. The precedent-setting decision can be used as a benchmark in future cases.
A young woman named K. L. took her case to the Family Court, stating that her husband was extremely stingy. She claimed that her husband prevented their shared home from having livable conditions and did not want anyone to visit.
Claims presented to the court
The plaintiff K. L. argued that even the basic needs of the home were not met. In her statement to the court, she said her husband constantly insulted her with remarks like 'you left the bathroom light on too long, you flushed the toilet' and kicked her out of the house.
The woman also stated that even if only one potato remained at home, her husband would not buy groceries or detergent, forbade her from brewing tea, neglected his personal hygiene, and constantly implied he might cheat on her.
Compensation and alimony claims
K. L. sought a divorce on the grounds of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, monthly poverty alimony of 1,500 TL, and material compensation of 30,000 TL and moral compensation of 50,000 TL, both with interest.
The Court of Cassation's decision is set to serve as a precedent for similar cases in the future.