Turkey’s Constitutional Court (AYM) has annulled the provision in the Turkish Civil Code that allowed poverty alimony to be paid “indefinitely.” Justice Minister Akın Gürlek described the ruling as a response to “citizens’ demands,” prompting questions about whose demands are prioritized in policymaking. Meanwhile, victims’ groups and women’s organizations have strongly criticized the decision.
Turkey’s Constitutional Court has annulled a key provision of the country’s Civil Code that allowed post-divorce poverty alimony to be awarded indefinitely. The ruling concerns Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code and specifically removes the phrase “indefinitely” from the legislation. Although the decision does not abolish alimony itself, it ends the legal basis for awards that continue without a predefined time limit. The ruling will come into effect nine months after the publication of the Court’s full reasoning, giving parliament time to prepare a new legal framework.
The case originated from a referral by the 12th Family Court of Antalya, which asked the Constitutional Court to review the provision. Under the existing system, a spouse who would face poverty as a result of divorce may request financial support from the other spouse, provided that they are not more at fault for the breakdown of the marriage. Contrary to popular portrayals, however, the term “indefinite alimony” has never meant automatic lifetime payments. Current law already allows alimony to end if the recipient remarries, enters into a marriage-like relationship, becomes financially self-sufficient, or if either party dies. Courts may also reduce or terminate payments if the economic circumstances of the parties change significantly.
The Constitutional Court has not yet published its full justification for the ruling. Nevertheless, the decision immediately generated strong reactions from women’s rights organisations, lawyers, and civil society groups, many of whom view the move as part of a broader political effort to weaken legal protections for women.
One of the strongest criticisms came from Çisel Demirkan Sakallı, Secretary General of the Association for Children and Women First. She argued that debates surrounding poverty alimony obscure the deeper causes of women’s economic insecurity. According to Sakallı, the primary problems are not found in the alimony system itself but in the lack of public childcare services, insufficient social welfare policies, and the disproportionate burden of caregiving responsibilities placed on women. These structural inequalities often force women out of the labour market and leave them economically vulnerable after divorce. She contended that many women who receive alimony have spent years performing unpaid domestic labour and caring for children or elderly relatives, sacrificing their own employment opportunities in the process. Restricting alimony, she argued, would expose precisely these women to greater poverty and insecurity. In her view, the ultimate consequence would be to make women more dependent on husbands and family structures, even in situations involving domestic abuse.
Similar concerns were raised by Şirin Yalıncakoğlu from the We Will Stop Femicides Platform. She emphasised that poverty alimony is legally available to both men and women and is intended to protect whichever spouse falls into poverty after divorce. However, because women continue to carry the overwhelming burden of unpaid domestic and caregiving work in Turkey, they are by far the most common beneficiaries. Yalıncakoğlu argued that efforts to weaken alimony protections cannot be separated from broader political debates about family policy and gender roles. She suggested that reducing access to alimony would leave many women economically dependent on former husbands and more vulnerable to violence and coercion.
The Women’s Platform for Equality (EŞİK), one of Turkey’s most prominent feminist coalitions, also condemned the ruling. In a public statement, the organisation challenged the Court’s reasoning by asking what had changed in the past decade to justify a different constitutional interpretation. The group pointed out that gender equality has not been achieved in Turkey, women’s labour-force participation remains significantly lower than men’s, and female poverty continues to be a serious social issue. EŞİK further argued that public discussions about “lifetime alimony victims” have often ignored the realities faced by divorced women. Citing research conducted by the Women’s Solidarity Foundation, the organisation noted that many women struggle to collect even the modest alimony payments awarded to them by courts. For EŞİK, the issue is not the amount of alimony but the removal of one of the few legal mechanisms that partially compensates women for years of unpaid care work and labour-market disadvantage. The organisation described poverty alimony as a right rather than a privilege and warned that targeting it would deepen existing inequalities.
Another EŞİK activist, Hülya Gülbahar, warned that the decision could make it more difficult for women to leave abusive relationships. She argued that public discussion often ignores the practical realities facing divorced women with young children, particularly those who have limited employment prospects because of years spent outside the workforce. Gülbahar expressed concern that future legislation might not only affect new cases but could potentially undermine existing alimony arrangements as well. She linked the debate to broader government rhetoric that celebrates motherhood and traditional family roles while offering limited support for women’s economic independence.
Limited time for a replacement framework
The Constitutional Court’s ruling leaves parliament with nine months to develop a replacement framework. Although the details remain uncertain, proposals that have circulated in public debate include introducing fixed time limits on alimony, linking the duration of support to the length of the marriage, or creating new social welfare mechanisms to assist divorced individuals once alimony payments end. The government’s eventual response and the Court’s forthcoming justification will be closely watched, as they are likely to shape the future of economic protections available to divorced spouses in Turkey.
For many women’s rights advocates, however, the ruling is about far more than family law. They see it as part of a wider struggle over gender equality, social welfare, and the role of women in Turkish society. Whether the forthcoming reforms ultimately strengthen or weaken the economic position of divorced women is likely to become one of the most contentious legal and political debates in Turkey over the coming year.