07.01.2026 12:23
In a divorce case seen in Sakarya, the Court of Cassation made a landmark decision. The court ruled that when deciding whether to grant the woman alimony for poverty, the rental income from real estate and the outcome of the property case between the parties should also be taken into account. The lawyer summarized the situation by stating, "For example, the woman's likelihood of being entitled to property division will now directly affect the determination of alimony."
A couple in Sakarya filed for divorce against each other. In the case heard at the Family Court, the divorce petition filed by the male spouse was rejected, while the female spouse's petition was accepted. The local court ruled in favor of the female spouse for material and moral compensation and alimony, citing that she would fall into poverty due to the divorce. Following the decision, both parties appealed the ruling through their lawyers.
MALE RETIREE, FEMALE HAS RENTAL INCOME
The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, reviewing the case, issued a decision that changed the precedent, overturning the local court's ruling regarding alimony. In the ruling, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation noted that the male spouse was retired, while the female spouse had income-generating real estate.
PROPERTY DIVISION CASE WILL DIRECTLY AFFECT ALIMONY
The decision emphasized that the amount of rental income obtained from the female spouse's real estate needed to be investigated. The Chamber also stated that the ongoing or concluded "dissolution of the property regime" case between the parties would also be influential in the alimony decision. The Supreme Court decided that it was necessary to determine whether the share the female spouse would receive from the property division and her rental income would save her from poverty, and to reassess the alimony conditions accordingly.
NEW CRITERION IN ALIMONY DETERMINATION
Evaluating the precedent set by the case of mutual divorce in Sakarya, where the male spouse's petition was rejected and the female spouse's petition was accepted, Lawyer Fatih Karamercan stated that the Court of Cassation took a revolutionary step in determining alimony.
Karamercan noted that income-generating real estate has been considered in alimony calculations in established precedents, but with this new ruling, the dissolution of the property regime between spouses would now play a key role in determining alimony, stating, "The Court of Cassation ruled that not only real estate income but also the potential earnings from the property division case should be evaluated. Accordingly, it could be decided to completely eliminate alimony, not to rule on it at all, or to reduce the amount based on the outcome of the property regime case and the financial resources that may come from it."
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPERTY DIVISION AND ALIMONY
Recalling that after the amendment to the Civil Code in 2002, spouses gained the right to claim half of the other spouse's acquired property and that compensation claims also came to the fore, Karamercan stated that the criticisms regarding the continuation of the alimony burden despite high amounts obtained from property division were addressed by this ruling. He pointed out that in cases like the concrete case, the judge should take into account the income that may come from an ongoing property regime case, stating, "For example, in the divorce of Mr. Ahmet and Ms. Ayşe, the likelihood of Ms. Ayşe benefiting from the property division will now directly affect the determination of alimony. This decision, coming 23 years after the enactment of the Civil Code, is an extremely important precedent, albeit delayed, in terms of legal and equitable appropriateness."