The woman, who got married in 1980, succeeded in buying the jewelery worn at the wedding 40 years after the court decision.
The couple, who married the ceremony in 1980, began to experience incompatibility after a while. In the divorce case filed at the Family Court, the plaintiff also requested the gold worn at the wedding.
The court drew attention to the fact that the gold was bought and the circle was taken by the husband, and the woman rejected her request for ‘1 set suit consisting of 22-meter 2-meter gold chain, 22-carat 8-piece bracelet, 22-carat necklace, earring, ring and 3 small gold reinstatement’. . The defendant husband requested the rejection of the case, claiming that the trappings that were the subject of the case were exaggerated and demanded for the goal of enrichment.
The court dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s witnesses had no empirical information, and that the jewelery was taken away from the plaintiff’s consent, and that the plaintiff could not be proved by the plaintiff.
The 3rd Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the court’s decision, drawing attention to the fact that the witnesses’ concrete and empirical statements and the jewelery belongings were proved by the defendant.
In the case again, the Family Court ruled that the plaintiff’s gold was worn at her wedding 40 years ago. (IHA)
