Divorce Appeal Petition

DIVORCE APPEAL PETITION 

  

                TO THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENT OF THE IZMIR REGIONAL COURT OF APPEALS 

                      To be presented   

                 TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE 150TH FAMILY COURT OF IZMIR   

  

APPELLANT 

PLAINTIFF: MY   

ATTORNEY: Attorney ZA 

  

DEFENDANT: CL   

ATTORNEY: Attorney Ö.K. 

  

SUBJECT OF REQUEST 

Decision of the 150th Family Court of Izmir, Case No. …, dated …. 

  

DATE OF NOTIFICATION: … 

  

 SUMMARY OF THE DECISION: The Honorable Court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that "...the parties met during the divorce process and the lawsuit, thus trying to resolve their problems and exhibiting positive behavior towards each other...". 

  

REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR OBJECTION: 

The defendant and his client experienced constant disagreements from the early years of their marriage. Their communication ceased when my client began working in Australia, and they have not been seen together since. 

  

The defendant, however, claimed that he supported and visited my client while she was working in Australia, but that they had not been in contact since she returned to Türkiye. 

  

  

The plaintiff's witnesses generally stated that the plaintiff started working in Australia, stayed there for 4 years, after which the parties did not communicate, that their marriage was officially ongoing but not actually continuing, that the defendant had an active social life and that they had heard she worked in some nightclubs. 

  

The defendant's witness testified that the defendant had a child from a previous relationship, that their marriage was short-lived before the plaintiff went to Australia, and that the defendant's aunt visited the plaintiff abroad. 

  

The Honorable Court dismissed the case on the grounds that "...the parties met during the divorce process and the trial, thus attempting to resolve their issues and exhibiting positive behavior towards each other...". 

  

However, the court's reasoning is misinterpreted, as all three of the defendant's witnesses testified that the parties did not meet. Apart from the defendant's child, who stated that they had met based on hearsay, no one else testified that they had met. The defendant's aunt stated that she visited the plaintiff in Australia and that they did not meet again after she returned. Therefore, the decision based solely on the defendant's testimony is erroneous. 

  

The defendant failed to substantiate its claims with any concrete evidence, and witness testimonies do not support these claims. 

  

 CONCLUSION and REQUEST: 

 Considering the reasons presented above, the grounds stated, and matters relating to public order, we respectfully request and demand that a retrial be held, the court decision be overturned, and our appeal be accepted. 

                                                                                               Attorney for the Plaintiff Who Appealed  

                                                                                                                   Attorney ZA. 

 

Law Faculty Student

Nergis Gündoğdu