Mehmet A. and Fatma A. filed a divorce suit at the Ankara 5th Family Court. Although Fatma A. was a housewife, she said she helped her husband by making and selling ornaments and cleaning houses. Therefore, she claimed, she needed to receive a share of the house and the car. After consulting an expert, the court decided that Fatma A. was to receive 8622 YTL as compensation. Once the decision was appealed, the case went to the Supreme Court of Appeals. The 2nd Legal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals overruled the decision by claiming that the work such as cooking and cleaning that a housewife did could not be considered as a supplement to the house income.” However, the local court resisted this decision.
“She does not know her husband’s wage”
To defend its decision, the Ankara 5th Family Court made the following statement:
“A Turkish man does not do any of the house choirs such as taking care of children, cooking, washing dishes, doing laundry, cleaning, ironing and shopping. A woman, on the other hand, makes the ends meet with the allowance her husband gives and when she asks for more she gets a beating. As the man puts every kind of investment such as car, house, money earning interest and stock papers under his name, the woman endures the difficulties. She does not think that she may get a divorce one day and left with nothing. She thinks that everything they have is owned by both of them. That is why she endures all the difficulties. In short, the reason the husband can make investments and accumulate money is because his wife is frugal. Can especially the workers, the soldiers, the government workers, the police and the judge own a house or a car otherwise?”
“The woman is not a modern slave”
The court resisted the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals by stating “When we look at the real situation as a human right and women’s right issue, can we interpret the Turkish Civil Code against the non-working woman and can we see women as modern slaves working for food and shelter until divorced and who take care of the house, the children, satisfy the sexual needs of their husbands? How legal is this interpretation that approves the women to be thrown out with nothing after 20 pr 30 years of marriage.” (SH/TK/TB)
