Türkiye plans time limits on alimony under judicial reform package

Alimony is financial support paid by one former spouse to the other after divorce. It is intended for a spouse who cannot support themselves financially. The proposed Turkish rules would consider both spouses’ circumstances when setting the payment period.

For example, a spouse with limited education, poor health, or no realistic way to earn enough income might receive alimony. A judge would also consider the paying spouse’s ability to rebuild life after divorce. The support is not automatically unlimited under the draft.

The bill would replace the word “indefinitely” in Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code. Payments would normally last at least three years and no more than half the marriage’s length. Longer payments could remain possible in specific cases, including wrongful conduct by the paying spouse or an older recipient without regular income.

The proposed 13th Judicial Package would change Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code. It would remove the word “indefinitely” from the rule governing alimony for spouses unable to support themselves. The change matters because alimony would no longer be framed as automatically continuing without a defined endpoint.

Under the draft, judges would set the payment period after examining personal and financial circumstances. The normal period would be at least three years and could not exceed half the marriage’s length. This creates a clear framework while preserving judicial discretion.

The limits would not be absolute in every case. Judges could order longer payments if the recipient cannot work because of a wrongful act by the paying spouse. They could also extend payments for an older recipient who lacks regular income because of the marriage’s length. The bill was expected in Parliament in the coming days.

The draft sets a minimum payment period of three years. It also establishes a maximum of half the marriage’s length. This would replace the possibility of alimony continuing indefinitely under the current wording described in the article.

For example, if a marriage lasted ten years, the normal maximum would be five years. If the marriage lasted eight years, the period could not normally exceed four years. The judge would still decide the exact period within the proposed framework.

The ceiling could be exceeded in limited circumstances. A judge could order longer payments when the recipient cannot work because of a wrongful act by the paying spouse. Longer support could also be ordered for an older recipient who lacks regular income because of the marriage’s length. Transitional rules would address existing awards and pending cases.

The proposed rules would give judges a list of factors for setting alimony periods. These factors aim to match support with the recipient’s actual needs and the payer’s ability to move forward after divorce. The marriage’s length would be one consideration, not the only one.

Judges would examine the recipient spouse’s age, education, and health. They would also consider whether that spouse can meet their own financial needs. The judge would assess how alimony payments affect the paying spouse’s life after divorce, helping determine a fair period.

The draft identifies situations that could justify longer payments. These include an inability to work caused by a wrongful act by the paying spouse. They also include an older recipient without regular income because of the marriage’s length. The period would generally remain within three years to half the marriage’s length.

The article identifies a Constitutional Court ruling on indefinite alimony as the reason lawmakers began reconsidering the rules. It does not describe the ruling’s detailed legal reasoning. Its immediate political effect was to prompt the ruling AK Party to prepare a judicial reform package.

The proposed response is a change to Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code. The draft would remove “indefinitely” from the provision covering spouses who cannot support themselves financially. Judges would then set periods using factors such as marriage length, age, health, education, and financial need.

The package would create a general minimum of three years and a maximum of half the marriage’s length. It would still allow longer payments in narrowly described situations. The bill is being prepared as the 13th Judicial Package under Abdullah Güler’s leadership and was expected to reach Parliament in the coming days.

If enacted, the proposed rules would not apply only to future divorces. The article says they would also cover pending cases and existing alimony awards. That could affect people already receiving payments or waiting for a court decision.

The key mechanism would be transitional provisions. These rules would determine when an existing payment obligation ends under the new system. The article does not give the exact calculation or a specific end date for each current award, so the practical effect would depend on those provisions.

The draft would therefore create a transition from indefinite wording to defined periods. Judges would use the new framework, including the three-year minimum, the half-marriage maximum, and listed exceptions. The proposal was still being prepared, so its effects were not yet final. Parliament would need to consider the package before the changes could take effect.

The proposed appeal limits would generally make some divorce decisions final sooner. Decisions rejecting appeals on the merits in divorce, custody, alimony, and compensation cases would usually become ineligible for further appeal to the Court of Cassation. This could reduce delay in family disputes.

The safeguard is an exception for conflicting court decisions. Further appeals would remain possible when first-instance courts and regional appellate courts issue different decisions. That mechanism preserves another level of review where the legal outcome is unsettled.

The article presents this as a balance between two goals. Divorce cases should conclude within a reasonable time, but people must retain the right to a fair trial. The proposed changes therefore narrow further appeals in ordinary cases while keeping them open when lower courts disagree. Their final effect would depend on the bill’s passage and implementation.