I. Introduction
The duration of post-divorce maintenance awarded on grounds of financial need has long been a matter of public debate. In particular, maintenance payments continuing for years after short marriages have been criticised as imposing an unfair burden, while the need to protect a spouse who withdrew from employment during marriage to care for children and undertake domestic work has also been emphasised. The debate centres on how to balance the obligations of the maintenance payer against the needs of a former spouse who is unable to support themselves.
By its judgment dated 4 June 2026, case no. 2025/156, judgment no. 2026/131, the Constitutional Court annulled, by a majority, the words “for an indefinite period” in Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, which governs post-divorce maintenance on grounds of financial need. The judgment was published in the Official Gazette on 30 September 2026. The annulment does not abolish this form of maintenance altogether. The judgment concerns the rules governing the duration of maintenance payments.
This briefing examines the reasons for the judgment, the dissenting opinions, the position during the nine-month transitional period and the legislative amendments anticipated.
II. The Constitutional Court’s Grounds for Annulment
According to the Constitutional Court, maintenance legislation must take account both of the needs of a spouse who falls into financial hardship as a result of divorce and of the effects on the maintenance payer’s life. It is acceptable for the mutual support arising from marriage to continue to a certain extent after divorce. However, the indefinite continuation of this obligation without regard to the length of the marriage and the parties’ individual circumstances may impose a heavy burden on the maintenance payer.
The Court observed that the statutory wording does not expressly require indefinite maintenance in every case. Nevertheless, settled judicial practice proceeds on the basis that a judge cannot impose an end date on maintenance. As a result, judges are unable to determine its duration according to the circumstances of the case, whether the marriage was short or long and notwithstanding the parties’ differing financial circumstances.
The judgment states that judges should be empowered to assess the length of the marriage and the maintenance recipient’s age, education, health and ability to support themselves. The circumstances in which maintenance may be limited to a specified period, extended or continued for life should be clearly prescribed by law. Accordingly, the Court did not call for the same fixed time limit for all maintenance awards; rather, it identified the need for a system allowing decisions to reflect the parties’ circumstances.
On these grounds, the provision was found unconstitutional in respect of the rule of law and the right to protect and develop one’s physical and spiritual existence.
III. The Reasons Given in the Dissenting Opinions
Engin Yıldırım, Selahaddin Menteş and Kenan Yaşar, who dissented, stated that the existing provision does not compel a maintenance payer to make lifelong payments in all circumstances. Maintenance may cease, for example, if the recipient remarries or is no longer in financial need, and the amount payable may be reassessed if the parties’ financial circumstances change.
In the dissenting judges’ view, the relevant criterion should be the continuation of the recipient’s needs, rather than the passage of a specified period. Protecting the economic position of a spouse who stepped away from employment and professional opportunities during marriage is particularly important. Problems in practice could be addressed by reconsidering judicial interpretations rather than annulling the legislation.
Yıldız Seferinoğlu agreed with the annulment but offered different reasoning. In Seferinoğlu’s view, the main problem is the divergence between the statutory wording and judicial practice, and individuals’ inability to foresee how long their maintenance obligation will last.
IV. Entry into Force and the Nine-Month Transitional Period
The annulment will take effect nine months after publication in the Official Gazette. This period runs from 30 September 2026, the date of publication, rather than 4 June 2026, the date of the judgment. Accordingly, the annulment will take effect on 30 June 2027. The deferral gives the legislature time to enact new provisions.
During this nine-month period, the existing rules will apply unless new legislation enters into force earlier. Courts will therefore continue, in line with existing practice, to award indefinite post-divorce maintenance on grounds of financial need where it is requested and the statutory conditions are met.
The judgment does not automatically terminate maintenance payments ordered by earlier final judgments. The existing statutory conditions for reducing or terminating maintenance remain applicable. The impact of the new legislation on pending proceedings and earlier maintenance awards must be assessed in light of the transitional provisions to be included in that legislation.
V. Legislative Preparations and Anticipated Amendments
Preparations for legislation on indefinite maintenance have returned to the agenda following the annulment judgment. According to Anadolu Agency’s report of 4 June 2026, Minister of Justice Akın Gürlek stated that maintenance was one of the principal issues in the judicial reform package under preparation and that new legislation would be submitted to Parliament taking account of the period allowed by the Constitutional Court.
TRT Haber’s report of 7 September 2026 stated that the maintenance amendments were intended to be implemented as part of a package due to be brought forward in October 2026. These statements indicate that an early timetable is envisaged for new legislation. However, the announced timetable and reports of preparatory work do not mean that the legislation has been finalised or entered into force.
Read together, the Court’s reasoning and these statements suggest that the duration of maintenance may be linked to the length of the marriage and the parties’ circumstances. Possible measures include empowering judges to determine a time limit, allowing extensions where need persists and permitting long-term or lifelong maintenance where necessary. The details of the new system will become clear from the legislative text and parliamentary deliberations.
VI. Conclusion
The Constitutional Court’s judgment requires the rules on the duration of post-divorce maintenance on grounds of financial need to be revised. The new legislation is expected to balance the maintenance payer’s burden against the recipient’s need for financial support and provide solutions suited to differing circumstances. Until the annulment takes effect, indefinite maintenance will remain available unless new legislation enters into force earlier. Transitional rules governing existing maintenance awards and pending proceedings will also be among the most important aspects of the new legislation.
For further information and assistance, please contact us at info@mapartners.com.tr.
M&A Partners
Law and Consultancy