Alimony awarded under the Turkish Civil Code is an indefinite allowance paid to the party who will fall into poverty due to divorce, in proportion to the financial capacity of the other party. However, this alimony does not possess an absolute and unchangeable nature. It is possible for alimony to be terminated, reduced, or increased. Changes occurring over time in the parties’ living conditions and financial situations may necessitate a re-evaluation of the alimony amount. This article, in light of the presented Supreme Court decisions, separately examines the principles and conditions under which lawsuits for the termination, increase, and decrease of alimony are evaluated, as well as the Supreme Court’s established precedents and fundamental approaches adopted on this matter. This article aims to provide a holistic perspective by addressing both substantive legal rules pertaining to the merits and procedural issues affecting the course of lawsuits.

a) General Principles

Broad Interpretation of the Concept of Poverty: The Supreme Court does not define poverty in a narrow sense as “having no income at all”. According to established jurisprudence, “those who do not have an income sufficient to cover essential and necessary expenses for developing an individual’s material existence, such as food, clothing, housing, health, transportation, and culture (education), should be considered impoverished.” (Quoted from Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers Decision no. 2017/455 E. – 2019/1084 K.).

Minimum Wage Not Being the Sole Determinant: The alimony recipient starting to earn minimum wage or slightly above does not, by itself, mean that poverty has ceased and the alimony should be terminated. This situation is considered a factor in reducing the alimony amount, but it does not completely eliminate the right to alimony.

Changing Conditions and the Principle of Equity (TMK art. 176/4): The fundamental basis for demands to increase or decrease alimony is “the change in the financial situations of the parties or circumstances required by equity”. Courts evaluate whether these changes are extraordinary and significant with concrete evidence.

Principle of Adherence to Contract: The Supreme Court of Appeals approaches requests for changes to alimony determined by a mutual divorce protocol with caution. “To request the complete annulment or reduction of an alimony payment that has been agreed upon by contract and approved by a judge, without the conditions required by law being met, constitutes an abuse of right.” (Quoted from the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals 2nd Civil Chamber, numbered 2021/1356 E. – 2021/3869 K.). For such requests to be accepted, an unforeseen, extraordinary change in the financial situations of the parties is required.

The Role of the Inflation Rate (PPI/CPI): In cases where an extraordinary change in the financial situations of the parties cannot be proven, the standard criterion for alimony increase requests is the Producer Price Index (PPI) increase rate announced by the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) to preserve the purchasing power of money. A justified reason must be shown for an increase above this rate.

The Importance of Procedural Matters: Many lawsuits are dismissed or sent back on procedural grounds without delving into the merits. Especially in alimony cases, reasons such as the annual alimony difference falling below the legal appeal limit, power of attorney, or missing file documents directly affect the course of the proceedings.

b) Lawsuits for the Termination of Alimony

The termination of alimony represents the most fundamental change and is subject to the fulfillment of specific conditions. According to Article 176/3 of the TCC, alimony; is automatically terminated upon the remarriage of the recipient or the death of one of the parties, and is terminated by a court decision if the recipient lives as if actually married without being married, is no longer in need, or leads a dishonorable life.

Cessation of Indigence: For this reason, most frequently evaluated by the Supreme Court, the income obtained by the alimony recipient must be regular and secure, sufficient to cover the basic living expenses defined above, and to relieve them from indigence. Working in temporary jobs or having an income merely at the minimum wage level is not considered a reason to cease indigence.

Burden of Proof and the Principle of “The Greater Includes the Lesser”: The party requesting the termination of alimony is obliged to prove the grounds relied upon (e.g., that indigence has ceased) with concrete evidence. If the court concludes that indigence has not completely ceased, but there has been an improvement in the recipient’s financial situation, “as the request for the termination of alimony also encompasses the request for its reduction” (Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers, 2014/692 E. – 2016/125 K.) it may reject the request for complete termination of alimony and make an equitable reduction.

c) Lawsuits for the Increase of Alimony

These lawsuits are generally filed due to a decrease in the purchasing power of money or changes in the parties’ circumstances. Unless there is an extraordinary change in the financial situation of the parties, the established practice of the Supreme Court is to increase alimony at the rate of PPI (CPI in some decisions) to maintain the balance at the date the alimony was awarded. The Supreme Court considers increases made above this rate, when no change has been proven, as an “erroneous assessment” and grounds for reversal (Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber, 2016/17393 E. – 2017/6650 K.).

Extraordinary Circumstance: If an increase higher than the PPI rate is demanded, it must be proven that there has been a significant increase in the needs of the alimony recipient (e.g., health issues) or a substantial improvement in the income of the alimony obligor. The court investigates these claims and establishes a new balance based on equity.

d) Lawsuits for Reduction of Alimony

Requests for reduction are generally based on the deterioration of the alimony obligor’s financial situation or the improvement of the alimony recipient’s financial situation.

Alimony Recipient Earning Income: The recipient starting to work and earning income is one of the most common grounds for reducing alimony. The Supreme Court views this not as the complete elimination of poverty, but as a fact requiring a re-evaluation of the alimony amount. The court, “in accordance with the principle of equity emphasized in Article 4 of the Turkish Civil Code, should decide to reduce the alimony to an appropriate amount.” (Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber, 2015/16107 E. – 2016/224 K.).

Deterioration of the Obligor’s Financial Situation: Situations such as the obligor losing their job or experiencing a demonstrable and significant decrease in income can also be a valid reason for the reduction of alimony.

The Importance of Adherence to the Agreement: In requests for the reduction of alimony agreed upon through a consensual divorce protocol, the Court of Cassation adopts a stricter stance. If the plaintiff (obligor) cannot prove an unforeseeable and extraordinary deterioration in their financial situation after divorce, their request for a reduction made solely due to reasons such as an increase in the exchange rate or general economic difficulties may be rejected as “abuse of right” (Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, 2021/6536 E. – 2021/6618 K.). An article suggestion.

Conclusion

The examined Court of Cassation decisions show that cases related to alimony for indigence are not static and are subject to a dynamic assessment within the framework of the principles of “equity” and “changing circumstances”. The Court of Cassation’s approach is that the purpose of alimony is not to enrich the creditor, but to compensate for the state of indigence resulting from divorce.

In this context, while strict conditions are sought for the abolition of alimony, such as the cessation of poverty proven with concrete evidence; requests for its reduction are used as a means to re-establish fairness in cases where the economic balance between the parties changes. In demands for its increase, the primary criterion, unless there is an extraordinary situation, is to maintain the purchasing power of the alimony against inflation. In all these processes, courts expect both parties to prove their claims with concrete evidence and aim to establish a fair balance within the unique circumstances of each specific case. Therefore, the outcome in such cases largely depends on the evidence presented and the nature of the changed circumstances.

Why is Lawyer Support Needed in Istanbul, Tuzla?

Cases related to alimony for indigence contain complex details concerning both substantive law and procedure. Since each specific case is based on different socioeconomic conditions, agreements, and evidence, an incorrect strategy or insufficiently presented document may lead to a loss of rights.

Therefore, at a regional level, such as Istanbul Tuzla lawyer, Pendik lawyer, Kartal lawyer, Maltepe lawyer, Gebze lawyer, Tepeören lawyer, Orhanlı lawyer, and Çayırova lawyer, seeking support from lawyers specialized in family law is of great importance for properly guiding your alimony claims.

An expert lawyer analyzes the feasibility of filing an alimony lawsuit, collects and presents evidence, evaluates economic reports, and, if necessary, challenges the validity of protocol provisions. Thus, a fair outcome can be achieved for both the alimony recipient and the payer.