جهت در دعاوی مدنی و ویژگی‌ های آن در دعوای طلاق با نگاهی به حقوق فرانسه

جهت، چیزی است که استحقاق خواهان در ادعا و خوانده در دفاع را نمایان می‌کند. در دادرسی مدنی، تمرکز یا تجمیع یا با هم آوردن همه جهات در یک دادرسی، طرفدارانی دارد، ولی در حقوق همان کشور خاستگاه، یعنی فرانسه، نیز از آن گذشته‌اند. جهت را باید عنصر مولد دعوا دانست که به عنصر مولد رای بدل و در اینجا به اعتبار امر قضاوت‌شده مربوط می‌شود. نمی‌توان اصلی با عنوان یکجا با هم آوردن جهات در دادرسی مدنی پیش‌بینی کرد و با این اصل، مانع دادخواهی‌های بعدی شد. جهات در برخی دعاوی خانواده مانند طلاق، شکل و ماهیت خاصی پیدا می‌کند. ماهیت دعاوی خانواده و وظیفه دادگاه در حفظ کیان و بقای خانواده، موجب می‌شود جهات استحقاق قانونی، قراردادی و قضایی این دعوا با نقش فعال قاضی در فرایند دادرسی همراه شود و حتی طرفین بتوانند ترکیبی از جهات را مطرح کنند. جامه بسیاری قواعد آیین دادرسی مدنی بر قامت آیین دادرسی خانواده راست نمی‌آید. در دعاوی طلاق، خواهان باید بتواند جهات استحقاق را تغییر دهد و تنها مانع قاضی برای استناد به این جهات،‌ به باور نگارنده، رعایت نشدن حقوق دفاعی خوانده است. گرایش‌های رویه قضایی برای متفاوت دانستن این دعاوی از دعاوی مدنی سست است.

the cause in civil actions and its features in divorce lawsuits a comparative study in french law

this article employs a library-based research method that is both critical and analytical-comparative. this approach entails the utilization of resources available in libraries, encompassing both paper and electronic materials. the methodology employed in the study and review was entirely critical. no comment has been included in this article unless it has been subjected to a thorough review and critique. in addition, the contents of this article, including topics and questions, have been subjected to analytical scrutiny with a view to comparative law. comparative studies have been carried out concerning french law to focus on the analysis and evaluation. the law of french civil procedure and the court precedence of this country have been considered in the comparative study. along with this study, court precedence has also been examined.article 51 (4) of the civil procedure law stipulates that the petitioner must set forth the obligations and reasons according to which the petitioner considers himself entitled to a claim to ensure that the intent is clear. this request requires the petitioner to specify the grounds on which they believe their claim to be justified. although the concept of reasons (le moyen in french terminology) is discussed in terms of several thematic, prescriptive, and affirmative categories, from an objective standpoint, the reasons can be anything from the perspective of the claimant. they may be rooted in the law of contracts, outside of it, or even in the law. for this reason, an answer within the legal system is sufficient.this article focuses on whether the plaintiff can rely on more than one aspect in his lawsuit or whether the defendant can raise some aspects and defer others for subsequent consideration rather than presenting all aspects as the basis of his defense. to illustrate, should the petitioner petition the court for a divorce judgment and allege instances of bad behavior, non-payment of alimony, addiction, and neglect? is it permissible for a divorce seeker to consolidate multiple analogous grounds for dissolution of the marriage into a single category, thereby indicating that she is in a predicament? in a lawsuit to terminate a contract, may the claimant request the termination in general and state his entitlement defect in goods or fraud? in all of these examples, can the judge select one of these aspects and refrain from commenting on the others or issue a judgment of disqualification and rejection? what is the effect of this type of judging? if a person has not raised the claim of termination of the contract due to fraud and other similar grounds in the lawsuit that require the preparation of an official document, can they raise such a claim in a subsequent lawsuit? how would the defendant respond to such a claim?two categories of solutions have been proposed to address these questions. one proposed solution is the concentration or consolidation of the aspects in question, which would require the petitioner and the defendant to present all aspects in a proceeding. if they fail to do so, it is assumed that they have claimed or defended all aspects.