A salary may be attached for a maintenance debt, and a pension may be attached under the conditions set by law. However, maintenance that falls due every month and maintenance that has built up from the past are not subject to the same deduction regime. Current maintenance, set by the court as a monthly amount, cannot be automatically reduced by the one-quarter calculation that applies to ordinary debts. For accrued maintenance, the type of income, the order of attachment, the amount needed for subsistence and the deduction applied are examined separately. [1–5]
This article addresses the collection stage that follows the lawsuit setting the amount of maintenance. Its aim is to set up a correct attachment request for the creditor and to identify unlawful or duplicate deductions for the debtor. One-sentence statements such as “the entire salary may be attached” or “no more than one quarter may be deducted for maintenance” can confuse different legal issues.
Which debt must be identified before salary attachment?
Current maintenance and accrued maintenance must be recorded separately
Current maintenance is the periodic payment that continues under the existing decision. Accrued maintenance consists of monthly amounts left unpaid from earlier periods. In the enforcement file, the past claim, accrued interest, enforcement costs and the monthly maintenance that falls due after the enforcement request should be shown as separate items. The letter the enforcement office sends to the employer or the relevant institution should also reflect this distinction clearly. [1, 4]
Non-payment for a few months does not remove the maintenance decision that gave rise to the debt. On the other hand, deducting the total of past monthly amounts from the entire salary every month, as if it were current maintenance, is not the same thing. In a dispute, first compare the enforcement request, the payment order, the attachment letter and the actual payroll deduction.
The enforceability of the decision is reviewed separately
For a salary attachment to be valid, the underlying decision and the enforcement procedure must both be correct. Maintenance that forms part of a divorce ruling and interim maintenance, an interlocutory decision and an enforceable judgment (ilam), and a current monthly amount and a later increase decision are not in the same procedural position. Correct arithmetic in the attachment calculation does not cure reliance on a decision that cannot be enforced. For this reason, the finality and enforcement procedure is reviewed before the deduction is calculated.
Can more than a quarter of the salary be deducted for maintenance?
The one-quarter provisions in the law do not have the same meaning
Article 83 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu, İİK) provides that, after the amount needed for the subsistence of the debtor and their family has been set aside, the amount attached may not be less than one quarter of the amount subject to attachment. Article 35 of the Labour Law No. 4857 (İş Kanunu), by contrast, provides a different protection for workers' wages while reserving the rights of maintenance creditors. Therefore it cannot be said that a single “one-quarter ceiling” applies to all wages and pensions. A rate given without identifying the employee's status and the type of claim is misleading. [1, 3]
The full deduction of current maintenance means that the monthly amount set by the court is deducted. It does not mean that the entire salary is deducted in every case. For example, where the monthly maintenance is lower than the salary, the word “entire” refers to the maintenance, not to the salary. An objection or request for reduction on the substance of the amount set by the court is a different remedy from a complaint against an enforcement office's incorrect deduction.
Other attachments and current maintenance may coexist
An earlier attachment on the salary does not mean that current maintenance must wait until that attachment ends. Running maintenance is assessed specially because of its subsistence function. By contrast, the effect of accrued maintenance on ranking must be examined separately. The entire past debt should not be placed ahead of other attachments by relying on the priority of current maintenance. The provisions of Article 83 on multiple attachments apply together with this distinction. [1, 5]
Can a pension be attached for maintenance debt?
Law No. 5510 treats maintenance debt as an exception
Among the exceptions to the protection against attachment that applies to income, pensions and allowances under Article 93 of the Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance (Sosyal Sigortalar ve Genel Sağlık Sigortası Kanunu), maintenance debt is one. Therefore, the defence that “I am a pensioner and I do not consent” is not, on its own, sufficient to lift an attachment for maintenance. However, it must be determined whether the payment is genuinely a monthly amount within the scope of this law, and which claim the attachment is applied to. [2, 4]
A pension attachment for a maintenance claim and a deduction made by a bank from an account under a loan agreement are different legal acts. The result of a decision on banking transactions cannot be carried directly over to a maintenance attachment. Likewise, where money other than the pension is also paid into the account, the account movements and the source of each transaction must be separated.
It cannot be said that accrued maintenance can never be collected from a pension
In the decision of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 12th Civil Chamber dated September 27, 2018, numbered E.2018/3738, K.2018/8845, it was held that there was no unlawfulness in attaching the entire pension for running maintenance and, for accrued maintenance, one quarter of the remaining pension. For that reason, the decision accepting the complaint against the attachment was quashed. [4]
This decision shows a two-stage assessment: first the current maintenance amount, then the deduction for the past debt from the income that remains. However, the method in the decision is not an automatic calculation tool to be applied without examination to every type of income and every combination of attachments. When the decision is cited as precedent, the pension and enforcement items it examined should be clearly identified.
| Claim or step | Point to examine | Common misreading |
|---|---|---|
| Current monthly maintenance | Monthly amount set by the court | Automatically reducing the maintenance to one quarter |
| Accrued maintenance | Remaining income, ranking and assessment of subsistence needs | Treating the entire past debt as current payment |
| Pension | Scope of Article 93 of Law No. 5510 and the maintenance exception | Saying that no attachment is possible without consent |
| Deduction from a bank account | Whether the transaction is an attachment or a contractual deduction | Applying the same rule to every deduction |
How is the deduction calculation checked against documents?
Payroll, attachment letter and file calculation are read together
A payroll shows only part of the result. The current maintenance requested in the attachment letter, the accrued debt, the order of priority applied by the employer, the amounts sent to other files and the collection records of the enforcement file should be read together. Maintenance paid directly into a bank account that also pays the same debt should be notified to the file with documents, so that it is not collected a second time.
The following example illustrates only the arithmetic of the calculation described in the 2018 decision. For a real file, the type of income, other deductions and the assessment of the enforcement office are also required. Interest and costs are not included in the example. [4]
| Calculation item | Hypothetical amount | Step |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly amount before deduction | 40,000 TL | Starting amount |
| Current maintenance | 8,000 TL | Deduction of the monthly maintenance |
| Remainder | 32,000 TL | 40,000 − 8,000 |
| Deduction for accrued arrears | 8,000 TL | One quarter of the remainder |
| Remaining payment | 24,000 TL | After the two deductions in the example |
A change in amount must be recorded in the file
Where an increase or reduction decision is given, its start date, enforceability and effect on the earlier attachment letter are examined. The employer cannot redetermine the amount of maintenance on the basis of the parties' oral statements. The new decision and the information on payment and termination must be submitted to the enforcement file in the proper form, and the current instruction must be transmitted to the relevant institution.
What happens if the employer does not apply the maintenance attachment letter?
Articles 355 and 356 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law impose obligations on the legal addressees of a salary attachment notice to give notice, make deductions and remit the amounts. Changes in salary, position or workplace must also be notified. Article 356 provides a special liability for amounts that are not deducted or not remitted. Therefore, an employer that receives the attachment letter and remains silent cannot be regarded merely as a problem between the debtor and the creditor. [1]
However, it cannot be concluded that any employee of the employer is personally liable for the entire debt. The addressee of the notice, the content of the letter, the period for which the deduction should have been made and the step that was actually not taken must be identified. The creditor should not stop at sending the letter, but should monitor whether the response and the collection have reached the file.
How can an excess or incorrect deduction be challenged?
Complaint and reduction of maintenance are distinct
An erroneous act of the enforcement office concerning the rate, the order of priority, duplication or the scope of enforcement may be the subject of a complaint before the enforcement court. Under Article 16 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the general period is seven days from learning of the act; legal exceptions and assessments relating to public order also exist. It should also be borne in mind that a complaint does not automatically stop enforcement. [1]
In the decision of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi) dated April 9, 2019, numbered E.2018/6682, K.2019/5934, it was accepted that where a salary deduction is repeated every month, a new right of complaint arises in respect of the last deduction. The ground for reversal was that the merits of the complaint had not been examined; the decision did not hold that all the deductions were unlawful. This distinction prevents conclusions being drawn from the heading of the decision alone. [5]
Economic hardship may require separate proceedings
A later loss of employment by the debtor, a fall in income or an increase in health expenses may be significant in a request to change maintenance. However, telling the employer that it now deducts less does not change the existing decision. Where the debtor relies on both the incorrect enforcement act and changed circumstances affecting the amount of maintenance, the grounds and the competent forums for the claims must be set up separately.
For an assessment application to Güneş & Güneş Law Firm, submitting the decision, the enforcement order, the attachment letters, the latest payrolls and the payment records together makes it easier to identify at which stage the deduction was wrongly applied.
Conclusion
A correct review of salary and pension attachment for maintenance begins with distinguishing the type of income and the current and accrued claims. The monthly maintenance set by the court, past debts, the order of attachments and the payments made should be visible in the same calculation. Instead of short generalisations about the deduction rate, the decision, the attachment letter and the collection records should be used for a concrete review.
Related articles: Can Maintenance Be Enforced Before the Decision Is Final? Interim Maintenance, Divorce and the Distinction Between Appeals; What Happens to Maintenance if the Debtor or Creditor Dies? Accrued Claims and the Liability of Heirs; What Happens to Maintenance When Custody Changes? Actual Care of the Child, New Maintenance and Past Debts; What to Do If Maintenance Is Not Paid? Enforcement Proceedings, Accrued Maintenance and Imprisonment as Coercion.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can more than a quarter of the salary be deducted for maintenance?
The current maintenance amount may exceed one quarter. The provisions that apply in terms of the type of income and accrued claims are examined separately.
Is the debtor's consent required for a pension?
Under the maintenance exception in Article 93 of Law No. 5510, the absence of consent alone does not prevent an attachment.
Does “the entire current maintenance” mean the entire salary?
No. Here “entire” refers to the monthly maintenance amount set by the court.
Can accrued maintenance be collected from a pension?
Yes, it is possible under its conditions. In the decision reviewed, one quarter of the pension remaining after current maintenance was accepted.
If there is an earlier bank attachment, does maintenance wait?
Current maintenance is assessed specially. The priority of accrued maintenance and of other attachments is examined separately.
Can the employer change the deduction on the basis of the parties' agreement?
The existing attachment letter and the decisions in the enforcement file must be the basis. Oral statements are not sufficient.
Can a payment made directly be deducted again?
The same debt must not be collected a second time. The payment record and the period to which it relates must be notified to the file.
Is there a time limit for challenging an incorrect deduction?
The general complaint period is seven days from learning of the act. The effect of exceptions and of a deduction repeated every month is assessed in the concrete file.
Does a complaint automatically stop the deduction?
No. Under Article 22 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, a complaint does not stop enforcement unless a court decision is given.
Does becoming unemployed automatically reduce existing maintenance?
No. A request for change must be assessed by the competent court.
Sources and legal bases
- Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), Articles 16, 22, 83, 355–356. Checked: October 14, 2026.
- Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance (Sosyal Sigortalar ve Genel Sağlık Sigortası Kanunu), Article 93.
- Labour Law No. 4857 (İş Kanunu), Article 35.
- Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 12th Civil Chamber, September 27, 2018, E.2018/3738, K.2018/8845. Official full text.
- Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 12th Civil Chamber, April 9, 2019, E.2018/6682, K.2019/5934. Official full text; the ground for reversal concerns the examination of the complaint.