{"id":1959,"date":"2021-01-08T12:13:30","date_gmt":"2021-01-08T12:13:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cananergun.av.tr\/?p=1959"},"modified":"2021-01-08T12:14:35","modified_gmt":"2021-01-08T12:14:35","slug":"bosanma-ilaminda-lehine-hukmedilen-yoksulluk-nafakasi-ve-musterek-cocuk-lehine-hukmedilen-istirak-nafakasinin-tahsili-amaciyla-baslatilan-ilamli-takipte","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cananergun.av.tr\/index.php\/bosanma-ilaminda-lehine-hukmedilen-yoksulluk-nafakasi-ve-musterek-cocuk-lehine-hukmedilen-istirak-nafakasinin-tahsili-amaciyla-baslatilan-ilamli-takipte\/","title":{"rendered":"\u00c7ocug\u0306un nafaka o\u0308deyenin yan\u0131nda kalmas\u0131 halinde nafaka borcu \/ Yarg\u0131tay Karar\u0131"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

YARGITAY 12. Hukuk Dairesi <\/strong>
<\/strong>2018\/4960 E. <\/strong>
<\/strong>2019\/591 K.<\/strong>
<\/strong>
<\/strong>MAHKEMES\u0130 :\u0130cra Hukuk Mahkemesi<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yukar\u0131da tarih ve numaras\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcddeti i\u00e7inde temyizen tetkiki bor\u00e7lu taraf\u0131ndan istenmesi \u00fczerine bu i\u015fle ilgili dosya mahallinden daireye g\u00f6nderilmi\u015f olup, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik H\u00e2kimi … taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten ve dosya i\u00e7erisindeki t\u00fcm belgeler okunup incelendikten sonra i\u015fin gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc :<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sair temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde de\u011fil ise de;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alacakl\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan … 4. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi’nin (Aile Mahkemesi S\u0131fat\u0131yla) 2012\/32 Esas-2012\/13 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 bo\u015fanma ilam\u0131nda lehine h\u00fckmedilen yoksulluk nafakas\u0131 ve m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk lehine h\u00fckmedilen i\u015ftirak nafakas\u0131n\u0131n tahsili amac\u0131yla ba\u015flat\u0131lan ilaml\u0131 takipte, bor\u00e7lunun icra mahkemesine ba\u015fvurusunda sair itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra alacakl\u0131 ile bo\u015fand\u0131ktan sonra m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fun kendisinin yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, t\u00fcm ihtiya\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n kendisi taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle nafaka \u00f6deme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek icra emrinin iptaline karar verilmesini talep etti\u011fi, mahkemece davan\u0131n reddine karar verildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lehine nafakaya h\u00fckmedilen \u00e7ocuk y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bor\u00e7lunun nafaka \u00f6demekle sorumlu tutulabilmesi i\u00e7in \u00e7ocu\u011fun alacakl\u0131 yan\u0131nda bulunmas\u0131 gerekir. Bor\u00e7lu bunun aksini ileri s\u00fcrerek, velayeti alacakl\u0131ya b\u0131rak\u0131lan m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fun bo\u015fand\u0131ktan sonra kendi yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmekte olup, bu iddias\u0131 her t\u00fcrl\u00fc delille ispatlanabilir. Buna g\u00f6re, mahkemece, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fun bo\u015fand\u0131ktan sonra bor\u00e7lu baba yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin idiian\u0131n bor\u00e7lunun bildirdi\u011fi her t\u00fcrl\u00fc delil incelenerek olu\u015facak sonuca g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekirken, eksik inceleme ve dar yetkili icra mahkemesince tan\u0131k dinlenemeyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esi ile bu y\u00f6ndeki itiraz\u0131n da reddi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 isabetsizdir.<\/strong>
<\/strong>
<\/strong>SONU\u00c7<\/strong> : Bor\u00e7lunun temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc ile mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n yukar\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 nedenlerle \u0130\u0130K’nin 366. ve HUMK\u2019nin 428. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca BOZULMASINA, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan harc\u0131n istek halinde iadesine, ilam\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren 10 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde karar d\u00fczeltme yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere, 21\/01\/2019 g\u00fcn\u00fcnde oy birli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T.C.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

YARGITAY<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130<\/p>\n\n\n\n

E. 2015\/15599<\/p>\n\n\n\n

K. 2018\/332<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T. 15.1.2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen ve yukarda a\u00e7\u0131klanan davada yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda Mahkemece, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f olup h\u00fckm\u00fcn davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine, Dairece dosya incelendi, gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

KARAR : Bor\u00e7lu vekili, m\u00fcvekkili aleyhine nafaka alaca\u011f\u0131 ilam\u0131na dayal\u0131 ilaml\u0131 takip ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ancak nafakalar\u0131n d\u00fczenli olarak \u00f6dendi\u011fini, Haziran 2013 y\u0131l\u0131ndan itibaren m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n m\u00fcvekkilinde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek faizi ile birlikte talep edilen 6.000,00 TL i\u015ftirak nafakas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden takibin iptaline karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mahkemece velayetin de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi karar\u0131n\u0131n 01.10.2014 tarihinde kesinle\u015fti\u011fi, velayetin de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesine dair mahkeme karar\u0131nda i\u015ftirak nafakas\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir talep ve h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan nafakan\u0131n 01\/10\/2014 tarihine kadar s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, takipte talep edilen alaca\u011f\u0131n bu tarihten \u00f6ncesine ait oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle itiraz\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f olup h\u00fck\u00fcm bor\u00e7lu vekilince temyiz edilmi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yarg\u0131tay’\u0131n s\u00fcreklilik kazanan i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda; lehine nafakaya h\u00fckmedilen \u00e7ocuk y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bor\u00e7lunun nafaka \u00f6demekle sorumlu tutulabilmesi i\u00e7in \u00e7ocu\u011fun alacakl\u0131 yan\u0131nda bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n gerekti\u011fi, bor\u00e7lunun \u00e7ocu\u011fun kendisi yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131nda bulunmas\u0131 halinde, bu iddian\u0131n tan\u0131k dahil her t\u00fcrl\u00fc delille ispat edilebilece\u011fi kural\u0131 benimsenmi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Somut olayda, takip dayana\u011f\u0131 … 2. Aile Mahkemesi’nin 20.01.2012 tarih 2012\/25 Esas 2012\/22 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131 ile m\u00fc\u015fterek iki \u00e7ocuk i\u00e7in karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesini m\u00fcteakip 250,00 \u015fer TL i\u015ftirak nafakas\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmi\u015f olup karar 27.02.2012 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. Alacakl\u0131 vekilince … 4. \u0130cra Dairesi’nin 2014\/10726 Esas say\u0131l\u0131 takip dosyas\u0131nda 22.08.2014 tarihli takip talepnamesi ile 27.08.2013 – 27.07.2014 tarih aral\u0131\u011f\u0131ndaki i\u015ftirak ve yoksulluk nafakas\u0131 alacaklar\u0131 talep edilmi\u015ftir. … 1. Aile Mahkemesi’nin 03.06.2014 tarih 2014\/31 Esas 2014\/294 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131 ile m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n velayeti babaya verilmi\u015f ve karar 01.10.2014 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. Lehine nafakaya h\u00fckmedilen \u00e7ocuklar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bor\u00e7lunun nafaka \u00f6demekle sorumlu tutulabilmesi i\u00e7in \u00e7ocu\u011fun alacakl\u0131 yan\u0131nda bulunmas\u0131 gerekir. Bor\u00e7lu bunun aksini ileri s\u00fcrerek, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n Haziran 2013 y\u0131l\u0131ndan itibaren kendi yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmekte olup, bu iddias\u0131 her t\u00fcrl\u00fc delille ispatlanabilir. Bor\u00e7lu taraf\u00e7a tan\u0131k deliline dayan\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re, Mahkemece, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n Haziran 2013 tarihinden itibaren baba yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bor\u00e7lu tan\u0131klar\u0131 dinlenilmeden karar verilmesi isabetsizdir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SONU\u00c7 : Bor\u00e7lu vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcyle Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n yukarda yaz\u0131l\u0131 sebeplerle \u00ce\u0130K’nun 366 ve HUMK’nun 428. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca BOZULMASINA, taraflarca \u0130\u0130K’nun 366\/3. maddesi gere\u011fince Yarg\u0131tay Daire ilam\u0131n\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren ilama kar\u015f\u0131 10 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde karar d\u00fczeltme iste\u011finde bulunulabilece\u011fine ve pe\u015fin harc\u0131n istenmesi halinde temyiz edene iadesine, 15.01.2018 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Hukuk Dairesi         2015\/2645 E.  ,  2015\/3678 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MAHKEMES\u0130 : BAKIRK\u00d6Y 1. A\u0130LE MAHKEMES\u0130
TAR\u0130H\u0130 : 05\/03\/2014
NUMARASI : 2013\/707-2014\/140

Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki menfi tespit davas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonucunda, davan\u0131n reddine y\u00f6nelik olarak verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn, s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine; temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten sonra, dosya i\u00e7erisindeki ka\u011f\u0131tlar okunup gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:

Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I

Davac\u0131 vekili dilek\u00e7esinde; daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan m\u00fcvekkili aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan dava sonucunda m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar Z\u00fcbeyde ve M\u00fcsl\u00fcm’\u00fcn velayetlerinin de\u011fi\u015ftirilerek daval\u0131ya verilmesine ve \u00e7ocuklar i\u00e7in ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 200’er TL i\u015ftirak nafakas\u0131na h\u00fckmedildi\u011fini, h\u00fckm\u00fcn kesinle\u015fmesine ra\u011fmen daval\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7ocuklar\u0131 yan\u0131na almad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n halen m\u00fcvekkilinin bak\u0131m ve g\u00f6zetiminde oldu\u011funu, ihtiya\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 m\u00fcvekkilinin kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ancak daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar lehine h\u00fckmedilen i\u015ftirak nafakalar\u0131n\u0131 takibe koydu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek; m\u00fcvekkilinin nafaka alaca\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a ba\u015flat\u0131lan takip nedeniyle bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitini talep etmi\u015ftir. 
Daval\u0131; yeni evlendi\u011fi e\u015fi ile birlikte \u0130stanbul \u0130linde ikamet etti\u011fini, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n ise kay\u0131nbabas\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunarak, davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir. 
Mahkemece; taraflar aras\u0131nda velayetin d\u00fczenlenmesine ve i\u015ftirak nafakas\u0131n\u0131n takdirine dair kesinle\u015fmi\u015f mahkeme ilam\u0131n\u0131n mevcut oldu\u011fu, bu ilam\u0131n de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi veya kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 hususunda davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir davan\u0131n da bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu sebeple davada hukuki yarar g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle; dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fu nedeni ile davan\u0131n usulden reddine karar verilmi\u015f; h\u00fck\u00fcm, davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.
Davada, velayetin de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan dava ile velayetleri daval\u0131 anneye verilen m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar Z\u00fcbeyde ve M\u00fcsl\u00fcm i\u00e7in h\u00fckmedilen i\u015ftirak nafakalar\u0131n; \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n fiilen davac\u0131 baba yan\u0131nda kalmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, haks\u0131z olarak daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015flat\u0131lan icra takibi ile talep edildi\u011fi ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclerek; takip nedeniyle bor\u00e7lu bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespiti istenilmektedir.
Kural olarak; i\u015ftirak nafakas\u0131 velayetin eylemli olarak kullan\u0131lmas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 bir alacak olup, velayet hakk\u0131n\u0131 eylemli olarak kullanmayan ana veya baba di\u011ferinden h\u00fckmedilen i\u015ftirak nafakas\u0131n\u0131 isteyemez.
\u00d6te yandan, \u0130cra \u0130flas Kanunu’nun 72\/1. maddesinde \u201cBor\u00e7lu, icra takibinden \u00f6nce veya takip s\u0131ras\u0131nda bor\u00e7lu bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispat i\u00e7in menfi tesbit davas\u0131 a\u00e7abilir.\u201d h\u00fckm\u00fcne yer verilmi\u015ftir.
Bu durumda, mahkemece; m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklara fiilen bakt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcren davac\u0131n\u0131n, \u0130cra \u0130flas Kanunu’nun 72\/1. maddesine g\u00f6re, daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a nafaka alaca\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in ba\u015flat\u0131lan takip nedeniyle bor\u00e7lu bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespiti i\u00e7in dava a\u00e7makta hukuki yarar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6zetilerek, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi gerekirken, yan\u0131lg\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme ile davan\u0131n usulden reddine karar verilmesi do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.
SONU\u00c7: Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan esaslar g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde tutulmaks\u0131z\u0131n yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi isabetsiz, temyiz itirazlar\u0131 bu nedenlerle yerinde oldu\u011fundan kabul\u00fc ile h\u00fckm\u00fcn HUMK.nun 428.maddesi gere\u011fince BOZULMASINA ve pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde temyiz edene iadesine, 09.03.2015 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi. 

3. Hukuk Dairesi         2015\/1536 E.  ,  2015\/6051 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MAHKEMES\u0130 : \u0130STANBUL 6. A\u0130LE MAHKEMES\u0130
TAR\u0130H\u0130 : 09\/09\/2014
NUMARASI : 2013\/638-2014\/585

Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki menfi tespit ve alacak davas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonucunda, menfi tespit davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, alacak talebinin atiye terk edilmesine, bu hususta karar verilemesine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn, s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde taraf vekillerince temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine; temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten sonra, dosya i\u00e7erisindeki ka\u011f\u0131tlar okunup gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:

Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I

Davac\u0131 vekili dilek\u00e7esinde; taraflar\u0131n 2002 y\u0131l\u0131nda bo\u015fand\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 ve velayeti daval\u0131ya verilen m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk i\u00e7in ayl\u0131k 200 TL i\u015ftirak nafakas\u0131na h\u00fckmedildi\u011fini, 2003 y\u0131l\u0131nda daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan davac\u0131ya teslim edilen m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fun 08.09.2008 tarihine kadar davac\u0131 yan\u0131nda e\u011fitim g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fun 2003 ila 08.09.2008 tarihleri aras\u0131nda davac\u0131 yan\u0131nda kalmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen daval\u0131n\u0131n bu d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin nafaka bedellerinin tahsili i\u00e7in davac\u0131 aleyhine takip ba\u015flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek; daval\u0131n\u0131n bak\u0131m g\u00f6revini yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemler i\u00e7in talep edilen bedelden davac\u0131n\u0131n bor\u00e7lu bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitine ve daval\u0131 tarafa 2008 Eyl\u00fcl ay\u0131nda \u00f6denen 1.000 TL ile takip nedeniyle \u00f6denecek olan nafaka bedellerinin yasal faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131dan istirdat\u0131na ve k\u00f6t\u00fcniyet tazminat\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131dan tahsiline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.
Daval\u0131 vekili; davac\u0131n\u0131n nafakay\u0131 \u00f6denmemesi nedeniyle ilama dayal\u0131 olarak takip yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunarak, davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir..
Mahkemece; bilirki\u015fi raporu do\u011frultusunda davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131ya as\u0131l alacak y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 4.910 TL ve i\u015flemi\u015f faiz y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 1.597,57 TL bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespiti ile bu miktar alaca\u011f\u0131n daval\u0131dan tahsiline, as\u0131l alacak k\u0131sm\u0131na dava tarihinden itibaren yasal faiz i\u015fletilmesine, % 40 tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmi\u015f, h\u00fckm\u00fcn taraf vekilleri taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine, Dairemizin 19.06.2013 g\u00fcnl\u00fc ve 2013\/8186 E. 10543 K. say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131 ile
(… Dosyadaki yaz\u0131lara, karar\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 delillerle kanuni gerektirici sebeplere ve \u00f6zellikle delillerin takdirinde bir isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmemesine g\u00f6re, daval\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcm, davac\u0131n\u0131n sair temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde de\u011fildir.(…) Ancak, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015flat\u0131lan icra takibine konu 08.01.2005-08.01.2009 nafaka alaca\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6neminden 08.01.2005-08.09.2008 tarihleri aras\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n nafaka y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcs\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, zira, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fun 2003-08.09.2008 tarihleri aras\u0131nda davac\u0131 baba yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131, takibe konu olup davac\u0131n\u0131n nafaka y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bulundu\u011fu (m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fun daval\u0131 anne yan\u0131nda oldu\u011fu) 08.09.2008-08.01.2009 tarihleri aras\u0131 nafaka alaca\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan daval\u0131 ad\u0131na a\u00e7\u0131lan banka hesab\u0131na, nafaka borcuna ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu havalelerde belirtilen toplam 1.200 TL lik \u00f6deme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususlar\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nmak suretiyle h\u00fck\u00fcm olu\u015fturulmas\u0131 gerekirken, yetersiz ve denetime elveri\u015fli olmayan bilirki\u015fi raporu esas al\u0131nmak suretiyle yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f, bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir….) 
Gerek\u00e7esiyle bozulmu\u015ftur.
Mahkemece, uyulan bozma ilam\u0131 do\u011frultusunda bilirki\u015fiden rapor ald\u0131r\u0131larak taraflara tebli\u011f edilmi\u015f, davac\u0131 vekilinin 09.09.2014 tarihli celsedeki menfi tesbit talebi haricindeki taleplerini atiye b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin beyan\u0131 g\u00f6zetilerek, menfi tesbit isteminin kabul\u00fcne, 1.000 TL nafaka alaca\u011f\u0131 ile takip nedeniyle \u00f6denecek olan nafaka bedellerinin istirdad\u0131 ve k\u00f6t\u00fcniyet tazminat\u0131na ili\u015fkin taleplerinin atiye terk edilmesine, bu hususta karar verilmesine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmi\u015f; h\u00fck\u00fcm, taraf vekillerince temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.
Dosyadaki yaz\u0131lara, karar\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 delillerle kanuni gerektirici sebeplere ve \u00f6zellikle delillerin takdirinde bir isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmemesine g\u00f6re; daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n t\u00fcm, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n ise sair temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde de\u011fildir.
6100 say\u0131l\u0131 HMK’da davan\u0131n atiye b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 \u015feklinde bir kavrama yer verilmemi\u015ftir. Davan\u0131n atiye b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 ifadesinden anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken, 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 HMK’nun 123. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen davan\u0131n geri al\u0131nmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bu maddeye g\u00f6re, davan\u0131n geri al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n hukuki sonu\u00e7 do\u011furabilmesi, kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k kabul\u00fcne ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r.
Somut olayda, davac\u0131 vekili, 09.09.2014 tarihli celsede menfi tesbit talebi haricindeki taleplerini atiye terk etti\u011fini bildirmi\u015ftir. Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere, atiye terk ifadesinden anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken, davay\u0131 geri alma olup, hukuki sonu\u00e7 do\u011furabilmesi kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k kabul\u00fcne ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. Ne var ki, mahkemece; daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n, davay\u0131 geri almaya kar\u015f\u0131 diyecekleri sorulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r
Bu durumda, mahkemece; davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n davay\u0131 geri alma beyan\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n diyeceklerinin sorulmas\u0131 ve sonucuna g\u00f6re bir karar verilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.
SONU\u00c7: Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan esaslar g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde tutulmaks\u0131z\u0131n yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi isabetsiz, temyiz itirazlar\u0131 bu nedenlerle yerinde oldu\u011fundan kabul\u00fc ile h\u00fckm\u00fcn HUMK.nun 428.maddesi gere\u011fince BOZULMASINA ve pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde temyiz eden davac\u0131 tarafa iadesine, 13.04.2015 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T.C.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

YARGITAY<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130<\/p>\n\n\n\n

E. 2014\/18322<\/p>\n\n\n\n

K. 2015\/2805<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T. 25.2.2015<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki davan\u0131n yap\u0131lan muhakemesi sonunda mahalli mahkemece verilen, yukarda tarihi ve numaras\u0131 g\u00f6sterilen h\u00fck\u00fcm davac\u0131-daval\u0131 kad\u0131n e\u015f taraf\u0131ndan, tazminat ve nafaka miktarlar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden, daval\u0131-davac\u0131 erkek e\u015f taraf\u0131ndan ise, birle\u015ftirilen davan\u0131n reddi, kusur belirlemesi, davac\u0131-daval\u0131 kad\u0131n e\u015f yarar\u0131na h\u00fckmedilen tazminat ve nafakalar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden temyiz edilmekle, evrak okunup gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

KARAR : 1-) Dosyadaki yaz\u0131lara karar\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 delillerle yasaya uygun sebeplere ve \u00f6zellikle delillerin takdirinde bir yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fclmemesine g\u00f6re, davac\u0131-daval\u0131 kad\u0131n e\u015fin t\u00fcm, daval\u0131-davac\u0131 erkek e\u015fin ise a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki bendin kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yersizdir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

2-) Mahkemece; 12.10.2010 tarihli ara karar ile m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davac\u0131-daval\u0131 yarar\u0131na 100’er TL tedbir nafakas\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmi\u015f, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n daval\u0131-davac\u0131 baban\u0131n yan\u0131nda ya\u015fad\u0131klar\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131nca, 23.5.2012 tarihli ara kararla m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar yarar\u0131na h\u00fckmedilen tedbir nafakalar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. M\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar yarg\u0131lama boyunca, daval\u0131-davac\u0131 baba yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklardan S. 5.3.2011 tarihinde, M. 5.3.2012 tarihinde ergin oldu\u011fu halde, daval\u0131-davac\u0131 baban\u0131n, davac\u0131-daval\u0131 kad\u0131n e\u015fin dava tarihi olan 26.5.2010 tarihinden, 23.5.2012 tarihine kadar davac\u0131- daval\u0131 anneye nafaka \u00f6demekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc tutulmas\u0131 do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SONU\u00c7 : Temyiz edilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn yukarda 2. bentte g\u00f6sterilen sebeple BOZULMASINA, h\u00fckm\u00fcn temyize konu di\u011fer b\u00f6l\u00fcmlerinin yukarda 1. bentte g\u00f6sterilen sebeple ONANMASINA, a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 harc\u0131n S.’ya y\u00fckletilmesine, pe\u015fin harc\u0131n mahsubuna ve 123.60 TL. temyiz ba\u015fvuru harc\u0131 pe\u015fin al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fkaca har\u00e7 al\u0131nmas\u0131na yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na, istenmesi halinde temyiz pe\u015fin harc\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131ran N.’a iadesine, i\u015fbu karar\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren 15 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde karar d\u00fczeltme yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere oybirli\u011fi ile karar verildi.25.2.2015 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. Hukuk Dairesi         2014\/10152 E.  ,  2015\/12759 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MAHKEMES\u0130 : \u0130cra Hukuk Mahkemesi
DAVA T\u00dcR\u00dc : Takibe itiraz

Yukar\u0131da tarih ve numaras\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcddeti i\u00e7inde temyizen tetkiki temyiz eden taraf\u0131ndan istenmesi \u00fczerine bu i\u015fle ilgili dosya mahallinden Daire’ye g\u00f6nderilmi\u015f olup, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten ve dosya i\u00e7erisindeki t\u00fcm belgeler okunup incelendikten sonra i\u015fin gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:

K AR A R 

Sair temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde de\u011fil ise de;
Alacakl\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan …..Aile Mahkemesi’nin 2004\/725 Esas – 2005\/445 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 bo\u015fanma ilam\u0131nda m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar lehine h\u00fckmedilen i\u015ftirak nafakas\u0131n\u0131n tahsili amac\u0131yla ba\u015flat\u0131lan ilaml\u0131 takipte, bor\u00e7lu vekili \u0130cra Mahkemesi’ne ba\u015fvurusunda takipte istenilen miktar\u0131n \u00f6dendi\u011fini, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n 2012 y\u0131l\u0131 A\u011fustos ay\u0131ndan itibaren velayet hakk\u0131 sahibi anne yan\u0131nda kalmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, vekil edeni bor\u00e7lunun yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n t\u00fcm okul, tatil, k\u0131yafet, \u00f6zel ders \u00fccretlerinin m\u00fcvekkili taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6dendi\u011fini, ilamda nafakaya 21.05.2005 tarihinde h\u00fckmedilmesine ra\u011fmen, icra takibinde 20.07.2004 tarihinden itibaren faiz talep edildi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klayarak icran\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.
Mahkemece, tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131 ve t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131ndan, davac\u0131n\u0131n ibraz etmi\u015f oldu\u011fu okul giderlerine ili\u015fkin faturalar\u0131n nafaka borcuna ili\u015fkin oldu\u011funa dair a\u00e7\u0131klama i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi ve daval\u0131 alacakl\u0131ya \u00f6deme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle yerle\u015fik Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda bu \u00f6demelerin ahlaki bir borcun yerine getirilmesi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu nafaka borcundan mahsup edilemeyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f, h\u00fck\u00fcm bor\u00e7lu vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.
HMK’nun 297\/2. maddesi; “H\u00fck\u00fcm sonucu k\u0131sm\u0131nda, gerek\u00e7eye ait herhangi bir s\u00f6z tekrar edilmeksizin, istek sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ndan her biri hakk\u0131nda verilen h\u00fck\u00fcmle taraflara y\u00fcklenen bor\u00e7 ve tan\u0131nan haklar\u0131n, m\u00fcmk\u00fcnse s\u0131ra numaras\u0131 alt\u0131nda birer birer, a\u00e7\u0131k, \u015f\u00fcphe ve teredd\u00fct uyand\u0131rmayacak \u015fekilde g\u00f6sterilmesi gereklidir.” h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7ermektedir.
Lehine nafakaya h\u00fckmedilen \u00e7ocuklar, y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bor\u00e7lunun nafaka \u00f6demekle sorumlu tutulabilmesi i\u00e7in \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n alacakl\u0131 yan\u0131nda bulunmas\u0131 gerekir. Bor\u00e7lu vekili, bunun aksini ileri s\u00fcrerek, velayeti alacakl\u0131ya b\u0131rak\u0131lan m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n m\u00fcvekkilinin yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bak\u0131m ve giderlerinin bor\u00e7lu taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmekte olup, bu iddias\u0131 her t\u00fcrl\u00fc delille ispatlanabilir.
Mahkemece, bu husunun tespiti i\u00e7in tan\u0131k dinlenmi\u015f ise de m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n iddia edilen d\u00f6nemde kimin yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmadan ve bor\u00e7lunun faiz ile ilgili \u015fikayeti hakk\u0131nda olumlu olumsuz bir karar verilmeden, bor\u00e7lunun delil listesinde \u00f6deme iddias\u0131n\u0131 ispatlamak amac\u0131yla bildirdi\u011fi bankalara yaz\u0131lan m\u00fczekkere cevaplar\u0131, dosya i\u00e7ine al\u0131nmadan karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. \u0130cra Mahkemesi’nce a\u00e7\u0131klanan bu talepler, karar gerek\u00e7esinde tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f, a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a olumlu ya da olumsuz karar verilmeden sadece bor\u00e7lunun sundu\u011fu okul giderlerine ili\u015fkin faturalar de\u011ferlendirilmek suretiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. 
O halde, Mahkemece, yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan eksiklikler de dikkate al\u0131narak bankalara yaz\u0131lan m\u00fczekkerelerin cevaplar\u0131 dosya i\u00e7ine al\u0131narak, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n 2010 y\u0131l\u0131 A\u011fustos ay\u0131ndan itibaren, bor\u00e7lu baba yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131 ile faiz \u015fikayeti hakk\u0131nda gerekti\u011finde bilirki\u015fi incelemesi de yapt\u0131r\u0131lmak suretiyle, olu\u015facak sonuca g\u00f6re bir karar verilmesi gerekirken eksik inceleme ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmesi do\u011fru de\u011fildir. 
SONU\u00c7: Bor\u00e7lu vekilinin temyiz itiraz\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc ile Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n yukar\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 nedenlerle \u0130\u0130K’nun 366 ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 HMK’nun Ge\u00e7ici 3. maddesi yollamas\u0131yla 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 HUMK’nun 428. maddesi uyar\u0131nca BOZULMASINA, taraflarca HUMK’nun 388\/4. (HMK m.297\/\u00e7) ve \u0130\u0130K’nun 366\/3. maddeleri gere\u011fince Yarg\u0131tay Daire ilam\u0131nn tebli\u011finden itibaren ilama kar\u015f\u0131 10 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde karar d\u00fczeltme iste\u011finde bulunulabilece\u011fine, pe\u015fin harc\u0131n istek halinde temyiz edene iadesine, 09.06.2015 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T.C.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

YARGITAY<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130<\/p>\n\n\n\n

E. 2013\/3029<\/p>\n\n\n\n

K. 2013\/8901<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T. 11.6.2013<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yukar\u0131da tarih ve numaras\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcddeti i\u00e7inde temyizen tetkiki davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan istenmesi \u00fczerine bu i\u015fle ilgili dosya mahallinden Daire’ye g\u00f6nderilmi\u015f olup, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten ve dosya i\u00e7erisindeki t\u00fcm belgeler okunup incelendikten sonra i\u015fin gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

KARAR : Bor\u00e7lu vekili, alacakl\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan vekil edeni aleyhine bo\u015fanma ilam\u0131yla m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk i\u00e7in h\u00fckmedilen i\u015ftirak nafakas\u0131n\u0131n tahsili i\u00e7in ba\u015flat\u0131lan ilaml\u0131 takibin, 2007 y\u0131l\u0131 Nisan ay\u0131na kadar t\u00fcm nafakalar\u0131n \u00f6denmesi ve an\u0131lan bu tarihten sonra ise m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk A.’n\u0131n bor\u00e7lu vekil edeni yan\u0131nda kalmas\u0131 sebebiyle iptalini istemi\u015ftir. Mahkemece \u015fikayet\u00e7i bor\u00e7lu taraf\u0131ndan alacakl\u0131 aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan velayetin ve nafakan\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n reddedildi\u011fi ve davac\u0131n\u0131n davas\u0131n\u0131 ispatlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. H\u00fck\u00fcm bor\u00e7lu vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0130cra emri incelendi\u011finde; alacakl\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk A. i\u00e7in h\u00fckmedilen 2007 y\u0131l\u0131 Nisan ay\u0131ndan itibaren birikmi\u015f nafaka alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 talep etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

2004 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130cra \u0130flas Kanunu’nun 33<\/a>\/1-2 maddesinde “\u0130cra emrinin tebli\u011fi \u00fczerine bor\u00e7lu yedi g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde dilek\u00e7eyle icra mahkemesine ba\u015fvurarak borcun zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya imhal veya itfa edildi\u011fi itiraz\u0131nda bulunabilir. \u0130tfa veya imhal iddias\u0131 yetkili mercilerce re’sen yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f veya usul\u00fcne g\u00f6re tasdik edilmi\u015f yahut icra dairesinde veya icra mahkemesinde veya mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde ikrar olunmu\u015f senetle tevsik edildi\u011fi takdirde icra geri b\u0131rak\u0131l\u0131r. \u0130cra emrinin tebli\u011finden sonraki devrede tahakkuk etmi\u015f itfa, imhal veya zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na dayanan geri b\u0131rakma istekleri her zaman yap\u0131labilir. Bunlardan itfa veya imhale dayanan istekler mutlaka noterlik\u00e7e re’sen yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f veya tasdik olunmu\u015f belgelere veya icra zapt\u0131na istinat ettirilmelidir.” h\u00fckm\u00fc d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u015eikayet\u00e7i bor\u00e7lu, 2007 Nisan ay\u0131ndan itibaren bo\u015fanma karar\u0131yla velayeti alacakl\u0131 anneye verilen m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk A.’n\u0131n kendi yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131nda bulunmaktad\u0131r. \u015eikayet\u00e7inin alacakl\u0131 aleyhine \u0130zmir 13. Aile Mahkemesi’nin 2007\/586 E. say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131yla a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 velayetin ve nafakan\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 davas\u0131nda, alacakl\u0131 vekili 12.7.2007 hakim havale tarihli cevap dilek\u00e7esinde “2007 y\u0131l\u0131 Nisan ay\u0131ndan itibaren k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck \u00e7ocuk A.’n\u0131n davac\u0131 baban\u0131n yan\u0131na gitti\u011fini ve tekrar annesinin evine d\u00f6nmedi\u011fini” beyan etmi\u015ftir. Duru\u015fmada dinlenilen davac\u0131 tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131 ve alacakl\u0131 vekilinin an\u0131lan cevap dilek\u00e7esi birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde 2007 y\u0131l\u0131 Nisan ay\u0131ndan itibaren k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck Arda’n\u0131n \u015fikayet\u00e7i baba yan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.T\u00fcm bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar sebebiyle takipte talep edilen 2007 y\u0131l\u0131 Nisan ay\u0131 vd. nafakalar\u0131n talep edilemeyece\u011finin kabul\u00fc gerekir. Mahkemece takibin iptaline karar verilmesi gerekirken yaz\u0131l\u0131 gerek\u00e7eyle ret karar\u0131 verilmesi isabetsizdir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SONU\u00c7 : Bor\u00e7lu vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcyle Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n yukarda yaz\u0131l\u0131 sebeplerle \u0130.\u0130.K.nun 366<\/a> ve H.U.M.K.nun 428<\/a>. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca BOZULMASINA, taraflarca H.U.M.K.nun 388<\/a>\/4. ( H.M.K.m.297<\/a>\/\u00e7 ) ve \u0130.\u0130.K.nun 366<\/a>\/3. maddeleri gere\u011fince Yarg\u0131tay Daire ilam\u0131n\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren ilama kar\u015f\u0131 10 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde karar d\u00fczeltme iste\u011finde bulunulabilece\u011fine, 11.06.2013 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

YARGITAY 12. Hukuk Dairesi 2018\/4960 E. 2019\/591 K.MAHKEMES\u0130 :\u0130cra Hukuk Mahkemesi Yukar\u0131da tarih ve numaras\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcddeti i\u00e7inde temyizen tetkiki bor\u00e7lu taraf\u0131ndan istenmesi \u00fczerine bu i\u015fle ilgili dosya mahallinden daireye g\u00f6nderilmi\u015f olup, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik H\u00e2kimi … taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten ve dosya i\u00e7erisindeki t\u00fcm belgeler okunup incelendikten sonra i\u015fin gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[56,59,58],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cananergun.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1959"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cananergun.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cananergun.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cananergun.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cananergun.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1959"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/cananergun.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1959\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1961,"href":"https:\/\/cananergun.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1959\/revisions\/1961"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cananergun.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1959"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cananergun.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1959"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cananergun.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}