Poverty alimony, regulated in Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (TCC), enables the party who will fall into poverty due to divorce—provided that their fault is not heavier—to request alimony indefinitely from the other party in proportion to their financial power for their subsistence. Although the phrase “indefinitely” in the article has been one of the most debated topics in Turkish family law for many years, the recent Constitutional Court (AYM) process regarding the unconstitutionality of this phrase is occasionally reported incorrectly to the public.
In particular, the AYM decision dated May 17, 2012 (E.2011/136, K.2012/72) and the applications registered under E.2025/91 and E.2025/156 that came to the agenda in 2025 must be distinguished from each other. In decision E.2011/136, K.2012/72, the Constitutional Court ruled that the phrase “indefinitely” in TCC Art. 175 was not unconstitutional and rejected the objection. Conversely, application E.2025/91 was rejected on the grounds that the rule could not be applied in the case pending before the applicant court; whereas in application E.2025/156, it was decided to examine the merits of the phrase in question.
Therefore, under current law, it is not possible to state that “the Constitutional Court annulled indefinite alimony.” As of August 27, 2026, there is no decision in official AYM records indicating that the phrase “indefinitely” in the first paragraph of TCC Art. 175 has been annulled. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the current legal situation, the previous jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, and the ongoing constitutional review process within this framework.
1. Legal Nature of Poverty Alimony
Poverty alimony is one of the financial consequences of divorce regarding the spouses. Pursuant to TCC Art. 175, the party who will fall into poverty due to divorce, provided that their fault is not heavier, may request alimony from the other party in proportion to their financial strength. Fault on the part of the alimony obligor is not required. Thus, the underlying rationale of the provision is to eliminate the economic imbalance arising from divorce to a certain extent, independent of the obligor’s fault in the events leading to divorce.
The fact that poverty alimony can be requested “indefinitely” does not mean that alimony will necessarily be paid for a lifetime in every concrete case without any conditions. Indeed, TCC Art. 176 provides that poverty alimony ordered to be paid as periodic payments terminates automatically under certain circumstances or may be removed by a court decision. Alimony is automatically terminated upon the remarriage of the creditor or the death of either party; whereas it may be revoked by a court decision if the creditor lives with someone as if married without a formal marriage, if their state of poverty ceases, or if they lead a dishonorable lifestyle. Furthermore, alimony may be increased or decreased in cases where the financial situations of the parties change or equity requires it.
2. The 2012 Decision of the Constitutional Court
One of the most important norm control decisions regarding indefinite poverty alimony is the AYM decision dated May 17, 2012 (E.2011/136, K.2012/72). The application stemmed from an objection filed by the Kestel Civil Court of First Instance (acting as a Family Court), alleging that the phrase “indefinitely” in the first paragraph of TCC Art. 175 violated Articles 2, 10, and 41 of the Constitution.
In this decision, the Constitutional Court specifically emphasized that the phrase “indefinitely” does not mean that the alimony creditor will receive alimony until death under all circumstances. According to the Court, the purpose of the phrase is to support the spouse who will fall into poverty due to divorce economically by the other spouse and to meet their minimum living requirements as long as the conditions persist.
The AYM also stated that the purpose of poverty alimony is not to enrich the alimony creditor; in addition to the alimony creditor falling into poverty, the spouse from whom alimony is requested must also possess the capacity to pay. The Court recognized that social solidarity lies at the core of poverty alimony, which constitutes a continuation of the obligation of solidarity and mutual assistance in the marital union to a certain extent after divorce.
Consequently, the AYM decided that the phrase “indefinitely” in TCC Art. 175 was not contrary to the principle of the social state governed by the rule of law set forth in Article 2 of the Constitution, and rejected the objection. The rule was found to have no relevance to Articles 10 and 41 of the Constitution.
3. Constitutional Review Process in 2025
3.1. Application No. E.2025/91 In 2025, a new objection application regarding the phrase “indefinitely” in TCC Art. 175 came to the agenda. In the Constitutional Court’s General Assembly agenda and results dated March 27, 2025, application E.2025/91 was brought by the Antalya 12th Family Court. However, the AYM rejected the application due to lack of jurisdiction because the rule in question had no possibility of application in the specific case pending before the referring court.
Therefore, file E.2025/91 is not an annulment or rejection decision issued on the merits concerning whether the phrase “indefinitely” in TCC Art. 175 is unconstitutional. Interpreting this decision as “AYM annulled indefinite alimony” is legally inaccurate.
3.2. Application No. E.2025/156 The main ongoing process of importance is file E.2025/156. In the application of the Antalya 12th Family Court, the annulment of the phrase “indefinitely” in the first paragraph of TCC Art. 175 was requested. The AYM decided to examine the merits of this application at its General Assembly meeting on July 10, 2025.
In the AYM General Assembly agenda and results dated June 4, 2026, file E.2025/156 remains in the stage of examination on the merits. Therefore, as of August 27, 2026, according to official records, it is impossible to state that the phrase “indefinitely” in TCC Art. 175 has been annulled. The continuation of the examination on the merits does not guarantee that the request for annulment will be accepted.
4. Meaning of “Indefinite Alimony” Under Current Law
The phrase “indefinitely” in TCC Art. 175 means that it is not mandatory to restrict poverty alimony to a specific calendar period at the time it is awarded. Nevertheless, alimony is not an absolute obligation independent of circumstances. The grounds for termination and modification provided in TCC Art. 176 demonstrate that the continuation of alimony is subject to conditions.
For this reason, although the expression “lifetime alimony” used in public discourse may describe the “indefinite” phrase in the statutory text, technically it does not result in alimony continuing until death in every concrete case. Whether alimony continues depends on whether the conditions specified in TCC Art. 175 and Art. 176 exist in the concrete case.
5. Relationship Between the 2012 AYM Decision and the Current Application
Decision E.2011/136, K.2012/72 of 2012 and application E.2025/156 of 2025 pertain to the same statutory provision. However, changes in social, economic, and legal conditions over the intervening period do not prevent the new application from raising different constitutional evaluations. The existence of the AYM’s previous decision is not an absolute obstacle to examining the merits of the new application; however, prior jurisprudence will constitute a significant part of the new constitutional assessment.
On the other hand, the outcome of the 2012 decision was explicitly a rejection. Therefore, presenting the 2012 decision as a precedent for “AYM annulled indefinite alimony” in current articles is not possible. On the contrary, the decision established norm-control jurisprudence holding that the phrase “indefinitely” was not unconstitutional at that time.
6. Legal Consequences of a Possible Annulment Decision
The possibility of a future annulment decision regarding application E.2025/156 must be distinguished from the current legal situation. It is impossible to assert definitive conclusions regarding the reasoning, effective date, and impact on pending cases of a decision that has not yet been rendered.
If the Constitutional Court decides to annul a statutory provision as a result of norm control, the effective date of the annulment ruling under Article 153 of the Constitution and relevant procedural rules assumes major importance. The AYM may specifically determine a future date on which the annulment decree takes effect. Therefore, relying solely on the maxim “annulment decisions do not operate retroactively” to reach automatic conclusions regarding all finalized or pending alimony cases is improper.
Particularly regarding finalized alimony decisions, res judicata, vested procedural rights, enforceability, and the grounds for revocation or adaptation regulated under TCC Art. 176 must be evaluated together. Consequently, the effect of a possible annulment decision on existing alimony decrees should not be asserted conclusively without examining the operative clause, effective date, and rationale of the AYM decision.
Similar caution is required for pending cases. The date the annulment decision enters into force, the stage of the concrete lawsuit, the temporal effect of the applicable statutory rule, and any new legislative amendments must be evaluated concurrently.
7. Need for New Legislative Regulation and De Lege Ferenda Proposals
Reducing the debate on indefinite poverty alimony solely to the binary of “abolish alimony” versus “continue alimony for life” fails to reflect the case-specific nature of family law. In a potential statutory amendment, the objective should be to establish a reasonable balance between protecting the economically disadvantaged spouse post-divorce and avoiding an excessive, unpredictable burden on the alimony obligor.
One model the legislature could adopt is a tiered system determining alimony duration by considering marriage duration, parties’ ages, health conditions, employment/vocational prospects, economic statuses, and case specifics. However, these factors do not constitute an explicit statutory duration schedule under current TCC Art. 175; this merely represents normative proposals regarding potential legislative reform.
For instance, shorter alimony durations could be envisioned for short-term marriages, and longer durations for long-term marriages. Additionally, granting judges discretionary authority in exceptional cases—such as old age, severe illness, or objective loss of working capacity—could be discussed to maintain protections mandated by the social rule of law principle.
The presence of children must also be handled carefully. However, since child support (contribution alimony) paid for a child and poverty alimony awarded to an ex-spouse are distinct legal institutions, evaluating the overall economic consequences of the concrete case is more appropriate than making child ownership the sole criterion determining poverty alimony duration.
8. Conclusion
The phrase “indefinitely” in TCC Art. 175 remains in force under current law as of August 27, 2026. In its 2012 decision (E.2011/136, K.2012/72), the Constitutional Court ruled that this phrase was not unconstitutional. Application E.2025/91, raised in 2025, did not constitute an annulment or rejection on the merits, but was dismissed because the rule could not be applied to the referring court’s case.
In contrast, application E.2025/156 directly requests the annulment of the phrase “indefinitely” in TCC Art. 175, and the AYM has decided to examine its merits. Therefore, the legally accurate statement today is not “AYM annulled indefinite poverty alimony,” but rather “The constitutional review process regarding indefinite poverty alimony under TCC Art. 175 is ongoing.”
In conclusion, current legal analysis regarding indefinite poverty alimony must combine existing TCC provisions, the 2012 AYM jurisprudence, and the pending norm control process under file 2025/156. Assuming the rationale and results of an unrendered AYM decision to assert that “it has been annulled,” “a new system has started,” or “existing alimony orders have automatically terminated” is legally unfounded.