The Constitutional Court Annulled the Phrase “Indefinitely” in the Alimony Regulation!
Aslı Esmer Özkan
Of Counsel
Ahmet Hakan Ulutaş
Associate
By its decision dated June 4, 2026 (E.2025/156, K.2026/131), published in Official Gazette No. 33386 on September 30, 2026, the Constitutional Court annulled the phrase "indefinitely" in the first paragraph of Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code ("TCC"). The annulment will enter into force nine months after the decision's publication in the Official Gazette. The decision points to the need for a regulation under which the duration of alimony is determined according to the specific circumstances of each case and leaves the content of that regulation to the legislature.
The decision was rendered upon the referral of the Antalya 12th Family Court. The referral alleged that the provision violated Articles 2, 10, 20, 35, and 41 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court also examined the provision in light of Articles 5 and 17, in view of their relevance. The annulment applies only to the phrase "indefinitely." Poverty alimony as an institution, the other conditions of Article 175, and child support awarded for a child are not covered by the annulment.
The text of the law allows a claim for indefinite alimony but does not expressly require that indefinite alimony be awarded in every case. However, established judicial practice treats the rule as mandatory and grants the judge no discretion regarding duration. The Constitutional Court stated that the rule, as it stands, is not sufficiently clear and definite. The fact that the rule gives rise to an obligation to pay alimony indefinitely was also assessed in light of the alimony debtor's right to protect and develop their material and spiritual existence. The State's positive obligation under Articles 5 and 17 requires a reasonable balance to be struck between the parties. In this context, it is important to consider criteria such as the duration of the marriage, the parties' ages, education, and health, and the recipient's capacity to meet their needs with their own resources.
According to the reasoning, the judge should be given the authority to determine the duration of alimony awarded in the form of periodic payments under Article 176 of the TCC, and a specific and foreseeable framework should be established for this purpose. Where necessary, it should also be possible to extend the duration or to award lifelong alimony, and the conditions requiring this should be clearly set out in the provision. The provision was found to be contrary to Articles 2, 5, and 17 of the Constitution; no separate review was conducted under Articles 20 and 41; and no relevance was found to Articles 10 and 35.
The annulment was adopted by majority vote, with three members dissenting. One member concurred with the annulment on different grounds, stating that it should rest solely on the principle of legal certainty under Article 2, rather than on the balancing assessment under Articles 5 and 17. The nine-month postponement of the annulment's entry into force was decided unanimously. The rationale is that the legal vacuum arising from the annulment could harm the public interest.
According to the dissenting opinion, the criterion for alimony is not the passage of time but the continuation of poverty. Protecting a spouse whose capacity to earn income has diminished because of the burden of domestic labor and care is also significant in terms of de facto equality under Articles 10 and 41 of the Constitution. The mechanisms for increasing, reducing, and terminating alimony under Article 176 of the TCC protect the interests of the debtor. The problem stems from interpretation and application rather than from the constitutional validity of the rule, and the choice of an alimony model lies within the discretion of the legislature. The dissenting opinion also noted that there is no new justification requiring a departure from the Constitutional Court's decision dated May 17, 2012 (E.2011/136, K.2012/72).
In conclusion, because the entry into force of the annulment has been postponed, the phrase "indefinitely" did not cease to be in force on the date of publication. The decision neither automatically terminates existing alimony orders nor provides for the suspension of payments. The Constitutional Court has not set an upper limit, such as one year, five years, or the duration of the marriage. The approach of determining the duration according to the specific circumstances described in the reasoning should not be read as a new numerical time limit. The implications for existing alimony orders and pending cases must be assessed within the framework of the entry-into-force timetable, possible legislative amendments, and judicial assessments. The mechanisms under Article 176 of the TCC for increasing, reducing, and terminating alimony fall outside the scope of the annulment.
