Lawyer Hülya Gülbahar considers this decision "a wrongful dismissal of women's work within a marriage and an act of violence on behalf of the state".
Housework not a contribution
The Supreme Court stated in its decision that it could find "no account or proof that the plaintiff had contributed to the purchase of the house and car owned by the respondent. If a woman, as a housewife, cooks and cleans and looks after the children, this does not count as a contribution under Article 227 of the Turkish Civil Code."
If the Supreme Court's decision is resisted by the Ankara Family Court, the case will go to the General Council of the Supreme Court of Appeals.
New civil code not retrospective
Talking to bianet, lawyer Gülbahar said:
"When the Turkish Civil Code was amended, many women protested that according to Article 10, purchases made before 1 January 2002 in a marriage stay registered with the man. The labour of 17 million married women is being ignored in an act of economic violence in the hands of the state".
She is referring to the fact that the concept of joint ownership which has been introduced with the amendment in 2002 is not being applied retrospectively, meaning that women married for longer periods of time are not eligible to sharing the aquired properties in the case of a divorce.
Gülbahar stated that the local court had reached a fair decision, but that the court of appeals had overruled that decision. She lamented the fact that the Constitutional Court had not made the effort of changing the current law, despite the fact that in İstanbul alone three courts had referred cases to it. (GG/AG/EÜ)
Related Site:
* Women for Women's Human Rights: List of Critical Issues on Turkey
