04.06.2026 20:30
The Constitutional Court annulled the provision in the Turkish Civil Code that allows alimony for poverty to be claimed "indefinitely". Evaluating the decision, Prof. Dr. Cüneyt Yüksel, Chair of the TBMM Justice Commission, emphasized that the annulment does not mean "alimony is completely abolished" and signaled a new legal regulation focused on justice and equity, where criteria such as marriage duration, age, and health status will be considered in the new period.
Prof. Dr. Cüneyt Yüksel, Chairman of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) Justice Commission, made assessments regarding the Constitutional Court's annulment of the provision in Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code that allows indefinite claims for alimony on grounds of poverty.
“IT WILL COME INTO EFFECT 9 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE” Recalling that the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court annulled the regulation enabling indefinite claims for alimony on grounds of poverty on June 4, 2026, by finding it unconstitutional, Yüksel stated that the decision will come into effect nine months after its publication in the Official Gazette.
Yüksel, noting that the decision has not yet been published with its reasoning, said that the constitutional grounds and the Court's evaluations can only be fully assessed after the reasoned decision is published.
Emphasizing the particular importance of the Constitutional Court's nine-month postponement of the annulment, Yüksel stated that the current provision will continue to be applied during this period, while also providing the legislative body with the necessary time to make a new regulation.
Prof. Dr. Cüneyt Yüksel “THE PARTY WHO WILL FALL INTO POVERTY DUE TO DIVORCE IS ALLOWED TO CLAIM INDEFINITE ALIMONY” Furthermore, Yüksel stated that in relation to the right to protect and develop one's material and spiritual existence under Article 17 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court may have evaluated that the State, in accordance with its positive obligations arising from Article 5 of the Constitution, must ensure a fair balance between the interests of the alimony obligor and the alimony creditor.
Yüksel, noting that an important legal stage has been reached regarding the issue of indefinite alimony, which has been debated in public for many years, reminded that the current regulation allows the party who will fall into poverty due to divorce to claim indefinite alimony from the other party if the conditions are met.
Yüksel noted that in practice, in some cases, even after very short-term marriages, alimony obligations lasting for many years have arisen, causing various debates regarding the principles of fairness, proportionality, legal security, and predictability. He stated that the Constitutional Court's decision in this respect constitutes an important legal turning point.
Yüksel stated that this approach reveals that the issue requires a comprehensive evaluation not only in terms of individual disputes but also in terms of its social and legal consequences, and that the need for regulation regarding alimony on grounds of poverty is not a newly emerged issue.
“IN CASES WHERE THE ALIMONY CREDITOR REQUIRES SPECIAL PROTECTION, LONGER-TERM PROTECTION MECHANISMS ARE ALSO FORESEEABLE” Yüksel noted that various reform proposals have been being worked on for some time, taking into account requests from citizens, problems encountered in practice, and judicial decisions. He stated that this issue is being evaluated as one of the main topics in the ongoing judicial reform preparations.
Yüksel conveyed that in one of the models being studied, determining alimony on grounds of poverty in connection with the duration of the marriage is being evaluated. He stated that in cases where the alimony creditor requires special protection due to age, health status, or lack of employment opportunities, longer-term protection mechanisms could also be foreseen.
“INTERPRETING THE DECISION AS 'ALIMONY COMPLETELY ABOLISHED' IS NOT CORRECT” Yüksel stated that this way, both the principle of the social state and the principle of fairness would be observed together, and he particularly emphasized that the debates are not about the complete abolition of alimony.
Yüksel noted that there are different types of alimony in the legal system, including child support, temporary alimony, and alimony on grounds of poverty, and stated that their purposes, conditions, and legal consequences differ from each other.
Therefore, Yüksel stated that interpreting the Constitutional Court's decision as “alimony completely abolished” or “all types of alimony are ending” is not correct. He noted that the main issue is to establish a fair balance between securing the rights of the party in need of protection and preventing indefinite and unpredictable obligations for the other party.
“FACTORS SUCH AS MARRIAGE DURATION, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, NUMBER OF CHILDREN, AGE AND HEALTH STATUS WILL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT” Yüksel stated that the legal situation emerging after the Constitutional Court's annulment decision needs to be carefully evaluated, and noted that the current law lacks clear regulation regarding specific criteria to be used in determining the duration when awarding alimony on grounds of poverty.
Yüksel stated that if no new regulation is made and the annulment comes into effect, judges will decide based on the specifics of each case, taking into account factors such as marriage duration, the social and economic conditions of the parties, number of children, age, and health status. He added that in some cases, fixed-term alimony might be awarded, while in others, indefinite alimony could still be possible.
Yüksel expressed that this situation could lead to different interpretations and discrepancies in jurisprudence in practice. He evaluated that in order to strengthen the principles of legal security, legal certainty, and predictability, to ensure uniformity of practice across the country, and to resolve potential ambiguities, the legislator could also regulate the principles regarding the duration and application of alimony on grounds of poverty.
“THE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT MAKING A CHOICE BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN; THE ISSUE IS A MATTER OF JUSTICE” Yüksel stated that as the TBMM Justice Commission, their aim is to implement a balanced regulation that takes into account social reality, preserves the delicate balances in family law, and is shaped on the axis of justice and fairness, rather than on a gender distinction. He said they aim to create a system that secures those in need of protection while preventing disproportionate and indefinite obligations.
“The issue is not about making a choice between women and men; the issue is a matter of justice,” said Yüksel, drawing attention to the importance of managing the economic and social consequences arising after divorce on a basis of fairness.
Yüksel stated that they will carefully evaluate the new legal framework presented by the Constitutional Court and the reasoned decision, and expressed that a balanced regulation that takes into account society's expectations, the protection of the family institution, legal security, and the principle of fairness, ensuring certainty and predictability in practice, could be presented to the discretion of the Turkish Grand National Assembly.