The Term "Indefinite" In Poverty Alimony Has Been Annulled By The Constitutional Court's Recent Decision 18 June 2026

In this respect, since the relevant provision envisages that poverty alimony shall be awarded for an indefinite period, the settled jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation has consistently held that judges are not vested with any discretion as to the duration of the maintenance obligation. This has given rise to debates in practice on the grounds that it may impose on the maintenance obligor a payment obligation capable of continuing for life, thereby resulting in inequitable consequences. On the other hand, considering that the principal purpose of poverty alimony is to prevent one spouse from falling into poverty as a consequence of divorce and to ensure the satisfaction of that spouse's essential needs, the prevailing view has been that a fair balance should be struck between maintenance creditor and maintenance obligor.
 

Until its most recent annulment decision, the Constitutional Court, in its judgements concerning applications seeking the annulment of indefinite poverty alimony, stated that although the term "indefinite" is used in the relevant provision, it should not be interpreted as conferring upon the maintenance creditor an absolute entitlement to receive alimony for life. Indeed, in its decision dated 17 May 2012 and numbered 2011/136 E., 2012/72 K., rendered upon the constitutional objection filed by the Kestel Court of First Instance acting in its capacity as a Family Court, alleging that the term "indefinite" contained in the relevant provision was contrary to Articles 2,10 and 41 of the Constitution, the Court held that the legislature's purpose in employing this term was to ensure that a spouse who falls into poverty as a result of divorce is economically supported by the other spouse and that his or her minimum living standards are met for as long as the necessary conditions continue to exist. Furthermore, in order for poverty alimony to be awarded, it is not sufficient that the spouse requesting maintenance would fall into poverty as a consequence of the divorce; the spouse upon whom the maintenance obligation is imposed must also possess the financial means necessary to fulfil such obligation. Accordingly, it is understood that the Court's earlier approach regarded the term "indefinite" not as creating an absolute and unlimited obligation, but rather as establishing a protective mechanism contingent upon the continuation of certain conditions.
 

The Court also underlined that Article 176 of the Turkish Civil Code sets out various grounds for the termination of alimony. Accordingly, alimony terminates automatically upon the remarriage of the creditor or the death of either party. Additionally, alimony may be terminated by a court decision if the creditor cohabits with another person as if married, is no longer in poverty, or leads a dishonorable life. The Court regarded these provisions as evidence that the obligation is not absolute or unlimited.
 

The reasoning of the annulment decision rendered upon the objection application made by the 12th Family Court of Antalya within the scope of case file numbered 2025/156 has not yet been published in the Official Gazette. Therefore, Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code continues to be applied in its current form. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 153 of the Constitution, laws or their relevant provisions cease to have effect as of the date the annulment decision is published in the Official Gazette. Accordingly, family courts will continue to render decisions in accordance with the legislation in force until the annulment decision enters into force; in this regard, indefinite alimony may still be awarded. It should be noted that the annulment decision does not abolish the right to claim alimony on grounds of poverty; rather, it merely precludes courts from awarding such alimony on an indefinite basis. It is understood that the Court has deferred the entry into force of the annulment decision so as to provide the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM) with adequate time to address the legislative gap that will arise as a result of the decision and to introduce a new statutory framework governing the matter. Another significant issue concerns the legal status of maintenance payments that have either already terminated or are currently ongoing. Pursuant to the principle of non-retroactivity of annulment decisions, even after the annulment judgement enters into force, it will not have any effect on poverty alimony payments that have already been fully paid and consequently terminated by that date. By contrast, with respect to ongoing maintenance payments, it is expected that the legislature will regulate the legal consequences of the annulment decision and introduce transitional provisions governing the future applicability of existing maintenance orders.
 

This annulment decision of the Constitutional Court has the potential to lead to a significant transformation regarding the duration of poverty alimony. The final framework of the issue will be clarified upon the publication of the Constitutional Court's reasoned judgement and the enactment of new legislation by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM).