The couple, who had been experiencing disagreements for a while, went to the Family Court for divorce. The defendant-counterplaintiff woman also demanded the return of the bracelets that her husband bought saying 'we were going to buy a car'.
According to the news in İHA, the court ruled that 7 pieces of 22 carat bracelets, each weighing 15 grams, should be taken from the defendant and returned to the plaintiff in the same way, and if it is not possible to return the same, the price should be paid together with the legal interest that will accrue from the date of the case.
The lawyers of the parties appealed the decision. The Regional Court of Justice (BAM) pointed out that the bracelets were given to the man by the woman upon her request, with the intention of not returning them, and therefore an acceptance decision could not be made regarding the bracelets. It was decided to partially accept the case on the grounds that the requested 22 quarter gold coins were allegedly taken from the woman during the marriage process and used by the man and given to her by the man without asking for return, and that it could not be proven.
BAM ruled to reject the request for the return of 22 quarter gold coins to the plaintiff in kind, and if it is not possible to return them in kind, to pay the value together with the legal interest that will accrue from the date of the lawsuit. The plaintiff's lawyer filed an appeal against the decision.
Evaluating the case file in detail, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals reminded that, according to the Turkish Civil Code, each party is obliged to prove the existence of the facts on which it bases its rights. It was emphasized that, as a rule, the burden of proof belongs to the party who derives a right from the legal conclusion attributed to the alleged fact, unless there is a special regulation in the law. In the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals; the defendant-counterclaimant woman; "I gave the gold coins to my wife, who wanted to buy a car. The defendant registered the car he bought in his own name.
In this way, the defendant first took some of the gold to pay his debts and provide for the household, and bought a car with some of it. He took the remaining jewelery to his mother's house without my permission and approval, saying, "Sooner or later we come home, thieves will break in and steal the gold." By the way, once I had to go to a wedding and wanted to wear the gold, they handed me the gold left at the defendant's mother's house. After the wedding, I went to the defendant's mother's house again and upon the defendant's insistence, I took off the jewelry and handed it over to the defendant."
The defendant man's defense was stated that they exchanged the bracelets and bought a car upon the woman's insistence, and that the person who personally told him to buy the vehicle and made him sell his motorcycle was the plaintiff woman.
In the decision; It was stated that, according to life experiences, what is normal is that the gold is on the woman or hidden and preserved at home. The decision said:
"In other words, it would be against the norm for these to be left to the possession and custody of the defendant or his mother. On the other hand, the items in question are of a type that can be easily stored, carried and taken away. Therefore, it is always possible for the woman to take them and hide them in advance. However, in the concrete dispute, it is proven by the stamped card coming from the relevant workplace with the overlapping confession of the defendant male spouse that the 7 bracelets in question were used in the purchase of a car.
The man is under the burden of proof in line with his claim and defense that these bracelets were given to him not to be returned, and if the defendant proves that these items were given to him by the woman not to be returned and that they were exchanged and spent with the woman's request and approval, the man is free from returning them.
From the evidence collected, the defendant man could not prove that the woman gave the gold to him not to be returned. This being the case, although the Regional Court of Justice should have decided to accept the case in terms of 7 bracelets, it was not deemed appropriate to make a rejection decision in terms of bracelets with written justification and required reversal."
