The Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM) found the word “indefinitely” (süresiz olarak) in article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), which governs poverty alimony (yoksulluk nafakası, post-divorce maintenance), to be unconstitutional and annulled them. The decision was given on 4 June 2026 and published in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) on 30 September 2026. The annulment will enter into force nine months after publication, that is, on 30 June 2027.
What was the rule?
Under TMK art. 175, the party who would fall into poverty as a result of divorce may claim alimony indefinitely from the other party in proportion to the other party’s financial means, provided that their own fault is not greater. The party liable to pay alimony does not need to be at fault.
The Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) treated this word as mandatory. When a judge awarded alimony in the form of periodic (monthly) payments, the judge could not limit it to a specific period. Decisions that imposed such a limit were quashed.
In practice, poverty alimony ended in the following cases (TMK art. 176):
- Alimony ends automatically if the recipient remarries or if either party dies.
- If the recipient lives as if married without marrying, if their poverty has ended, or if they lead a dishonourable life, alimony is lifted by court decision.
Unless one of these situations arose, the alimony obligation could continue for life.
Why did the Constitutional Court annul it?
In summary, the Court’s reasoning is as follows:
- Protecting a spouse who has fallen into poverty is a legitimate aim. However, providing for the obligation to be categorically indefinite without regard to any criteria places a heavy burden on the paying spouse, even if that spouse is not at fault.
- The State has a duty to protect the material and spiritual existence of both parties (Constitution arts. 5 and 17). Indefinite alimony upsets the reasonable balance between the two parties.
- The judge should be given the power to determine the duration of alimony according to the specific case. In doing so, criteria such as the length of the marriage and the recipient’s age, education, health and ability to support themselves should be taken into account.
- Where necessary, lifelong alimony may also be allowed. However, the cases in which it may be awarded should be clearly set out in the law.
In 2012 the Court had found the same word to be constitutional. This time it reached a different conclusion, noting that practice had not changed after that decision and that alimony had continued to be awarded indefinitely in every case. The decision was taken by majority vote; three members dissented.
Why was it postponed for nine months?
If the annulment had entered into force immediately, a gap would have arisen in the law. The Court stated that this gap would harm the public interest and postponed the entry into force by nine months. This period was given so that the legislature can enact a new provision setting the criteria for the duration of alimony.
Until 30 June 2027, TMK art. 175 continues to apply in its current form. In decisions given until that date, poverty alimony will still be awarded indefinitely.
What happens to existing alimony?
Under the Constitution, annulment decisions do not have retroactive effect (Constitution art. 153). For this reason, alimony judgments that have become final to date do not end automatically as a result of the annulment decision. A person liable to pay alimony should continue paying until the new provision is enacted. Otherwise, they may face enforcement proceedings and sanctions for failing to pay the alimony debt.
How existing alimony will be affected by the new provision depends on the transitional provisions the legislature introduces. To say anything definite on this, it is necessary to wait for the text of the new law.
The routes that remain available today are:
- If the recipient’s situation has changed (for example, they have taken up regular employment or are in fact living with a partner), a lawsuit for the lifting of alimony can be brought.
- If the parties’ financial situation has changed, a reduction or increase of alimony can be requested (TMK art. 176(4)).
You can see how the alimony amount may change with annual inflation using our alimony increase calculator.
Pending divorce cases
In divorce cases that are currently pending, the existing rule also applies until 30 June 2027. Even so, two points are important:
- Option of a lump-sum payment: Under TMK art. 176(1), it may also be decided that poverty alimony be paid in a single lump sum instead of monthly payments. The Court of Cassation has stated in many decisions that, in short and childless marriages, courts should consider this option.
- The date of the decision matters: If the proceedings conclude after 30 June 2027, the provision in force on that date may be applied. For this reason, in cases expected to last a long time, the alimony claim and the defence should be prepared with the possibility of a new provision in mind.
What happens if the legislature does not act?
If no new provision is enacted within nine months, from 30 June 2027 TMK art. 175(1) will apply without the word “indefinitely”. The article will then read: “The party who would fall into poverty as a result of divorce may, provided that their fault is not greater, claim alimony for their maintenance from the other party in proportion to the other party’s financial means.”
In that case, how the judge determines the duration of alimony will be shaped by the practice of the Court of Cassation.
Recent decisions
- Constitutional Court, 04.06.2026, E. 2025/156, K. 2026/131 (Official Gazette 30.09.2026, No. 33386): The word “indefinitely” in TMK art. 175(1) were found contrary to articles 2, 5 and 17 of the Constitution and annulled. The annulment will enter into force nine months after publication. Decision text
- Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, 03.02.2026, E. 2025/6376, K. 2026/1025: Limiting poverty alimony awarded as monthly payments to a specific period was held contrary to the law. It was stated that the court should consider the option of a lump-sum payment, also taking into account the length of the marriage. Decision text
- Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, 14.01.2025, E. 2024/7133, K. 2025/194: Giving judgment without considering whether a one-off lump-sum payment could be ordered, taking into account the parties’ ages, the length of the marriage, their prospects of remarriage and the absence of a child together, was held to be a ground for quashing. Decision text
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. For your specific situation, please seek advice from a lawyer.