By its decision dated 04.06.2026 and numbered E.2025/156, K.2026/131 (the “Decision”), published in the Official Gazette dated 30.09.2026 and numbered 33386, the Constitutional Court annulled the phrase “indefinitely” in Article 175/1 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (the “TCC”), which governs spousal maintenance following divorce, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. The annulment will take effect 9 months after the publication of the Decision in the Official Gazette.
The Decision does not abolish the institution of spousal maintenance or the right to claim such maintenance; it annuls only the phrase concerning the possibility of claiming spousal maintenance “indefinitely”. The Constitutional Court considered that a legal framework is required which would allow the duration of spousal maintenance to be determined according to the circumstances of each case and strike a balance between the rights and interests of the maintenance recipient and the maintenance obligor.
How Does the Current Legislation Regulate Spousal Maintenance?
Pursuant to Article 175/1 of the TCC, a party who would fall into poverty as a result of divorce may claim indefinite maintenance from the other party, in proportion to the latter’s financial means, provided that the claimant is not more at fault. The maintenance obligor is not required to be at fault.
Article 176 of the TCC also contains provisions concerning the termination and modification of maintenance. Accordingly, maintenance ordered in the form of periodic payments automatically terminates if the recipient remarries or either party dies. It may be terminated by court order if the recipient cohabits with another person as though married, ceases to be in poverty or leads a dishonourable life. Maintenance may also be increased or reduced where the parties’ financial circumstances change or where required by equity.
The Constitutional Court’s review concerned neither the institution of spousal maintenance itself nor these circumstances governing its termination or modification, but rather the phrase “indefinitely” in Article 175/1 of the TCC. The application was based on the argument that the possibility of the maintenance obligation continuing until the end of the obligor’s life could restrict the right to respect for private and family life and the right to property, particularly where the obligor remarries, acquires property or establishes a new family and has children.
It Was Determined That, Under Established Judicial Practice, Judges Do Not Have Discretion to Determine the Duration of Maintenance
Emphasising the principle of legal certainty as an element of the rule of law, the Constitutional Court noted that the wording of Article 175 of the TCC cannot be said to require judges to award indefinite maintenance in every case. However, the Court observed that, under established judicial practice, the phrase “indefinitely” has been interpreted as mandatory and as precluding maintenance from being limited to a specific period. The Court considered that this divergence between the wording of the statutory provision and established judicial practice makes it difficult to determine the meaning and scope of the provision with sufficient clarity and foreseeability.
The Constitutional Court further stated that, where maintenance is ordered in the form of periodic payments, factors such as the duration of the marriage, the education and health status of the maintenance recipient and the recipient’s capacity to meet their financial needs through their own means should be assessed by the judge in light of the circumstances of each case, and that a foreseeable framework governing such assessment should be established.
It Was Stated That a Balance Must Be Struck Between the Rights of the Maintenance Recipient and the Maintenance Obligor
The Constitutional Court acknowledged that spousal maintenance serves to meet the minimum living needs of a spouse who would fall into poverty as a result of divorce and to protect that person’s material and moral well-being.
At the same time, the Court considered that an obligation to pay spousal maintenance may also affect the maintenance obligor’s financial future, assets and post-divorce life. The Court therefore stated that, when regulating spousal maintenance, the state must consider not only the protection of the maintenance recipient but also the rights and interests of the maintenance obligor and must prevent the imposition of a disproportionate burden on either party.
It Was Considered Necessary to Allow for Spousal Maintenance to Be Limited to a Specific Period
One of the key aspects of the Decision is that the Constitutional Court did not conclude that spousal maintenance must in all circumstances be limited to a specific period. According to the Court, depending on the circumstances of the individual case, spousal maintenance may be limited to a specific period, while where the relevant conditions are met, its duration may also be extended or maintenance may continue for the recipient’s lifetime.
However, the Court stated that judges should be granted discretion to determine the duration of periodic spousal maintenance according to the circumstances of each case and that a clear and foreseeable legal framework governing the exercise of such discretion should be established. Accordingly, rather than replacing “indefinite maintenance” with a specific maximum duration, the Decision essentially indicates the need for a system allowing the duration of maintenance to be determined in light of the circumstances of each case.
The Phrase “Indefinitely” Was Found Unconstitutional
The Constitutional Court concluded that the existing provision does not provide a sufficiently clear and foreseeable framework allowing the duration of spousal maintenance to be determined according to the circumstances of each case.
Accordingly, the phrase “indefinitely” in Article 175/1 of the TCC was annulled by majority vote for being contrary to Articles 2, 5 and 17 of the Constitution, concerning the rule of law, the state’s obligation to protect individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms, and the right to protect and develop one’s material and moral well-being.
The Decision does not mean that spousal maintenance as a whole is unconstitutional or that the institution of spousal maintenance has been abolished. Nor does the Decision establish a specific maximum duration applicable to spousal maintenance.
The Annulment Will Take Effect After 9 Months
The Constitutional Court considered that the legal gap that would arise from the annulment of the phrase “indefinitely” could prejudice the public interest and therefore postponed the entry into effect of the annulment to allow the legislature to establish a new legal framework.
Accordingly, the annulment will take effect 9 months after the publication of the Decision in the Official Gazette on 30.09.2026. The decision to postpone the entry into effect of the annulment was adopted unanimously.
During this period, the phrase “indefinitely” in Article 175/1 of the TCC will remain in force.
Assessment and Conclusion
The Constitutional Court’s Decision does not abolish the institution of spousal maintenance; rather, it annuls the phrase “indefinitely” contained in Article 175/1 of the TCC.
The principal consequence of the Decision is the need to establish a clear and foreseeable legal framework that allows the circumstances of each case to be taken into account when determining the duration of spousal maintenance and strikes a balance between the rights and interests of the maintenance recipient and the maintenance obligor. The Constitutional Court did not establish a specific maximum duration for spousal maintenance. On the contrary, the Decision indicates that, depending on the circumstances of the individual case, maintenance may be awarded for a specific period while, where the relevant conditions are met, indefinite maintenance may also remain possible.
As the annulment will take effect after 9 months, the legislature is expected to adopt new legislation during this period governing the duration of spousal maintenance, the scope of judicial discretion and the criteria to be taken into account in determining its duration. If no new legislation is adopted within the 9-month period, the phrase “indefinitely” will be removed from the relevant provision when the annulment takes effect. However, the Decision does not itself establish a direct and detailed framework governing how the duration of maintenance should be determined in such circumstances. Therefore, if no new legislation is adopted, it will be necessary to monitor how judicial practice and case law develop in relation to the determination of the duration of spousal maintenance.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
