Poverty Maintenance under TCC 175: Indefinite Term, Equity and Termination

Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code frames poverty maintenance clearly. A spouse who will fall into poverty because of divorce may seek indefinite maintenance from the other, provided they are not more at fault. Two conditions stand out: a real risk of poverty due to divorce, and the claimant not being more at fault than the other spouse. Though often awarded in favour of women for socio-cultural reasons, “indefinite” is widely misunderstood as absolute permanence.

“Indefinite” in the statute frees the judge from predicting when poverty will end — which is impossible. The spirit of the provision already allows termination once poverty ceases. No one should expect the judge to act as a fortune-teller. The rule is a natural result of family law’s protection of the weaker party.

In some cases poverty maintenance drifts from its social purpose: a lifelong “penalty” for the payer, and for the recipient an amount eroded by high inflation. The solution is not to abolish maintenance altogether. Rather than rewriting the statute, judicial practice should be more flexible and equitable case by case. Arts. 175 and 176 allow this; Art. 2 also bars abuse of rights and unjust enrichment.

Counsel, judges and the higher courts should find: if a person can work but relies solely on maintenance, or creates a poverty appearance through informal employment, maintenance should be lifted once real poverty is absent. That approach serves equity. In short, poverty maintenance is compensation for hardship. The solution is not rejecting the law wholesale, but using judicial discretion to prevent abuse of rights. In Ankara, Karınca Law Firm in Çankaya recommends case-by-case review for increase, reduction or termination. • TCC 175: poverty + not more at fault • Indefinite ≠ absolute lifelong; termination when conditions end • Arts. 176 and 2: flexibility and ban on abuse of rights • Work capacity / informal employment → termination review • Solution: equity in the concrete case, not rejecting the statute